ability grouping and science education reform: policy and research base

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 31, NO. 2, PP. 105-128 (1994)

Ability Grouping and Science Education Reform: Policy and Research Base

Sharon Lynch

The George Washington UniversiQ, School of Education and Human Development, Department of Teacher Preparation and Special Education, 2201 G Street NW,

Suite 524, Washington, DC 20052

Abstract

This article reviews current policy trends concerning the practice of ability grouping in K-12 science education. Relevant statements of key policy-making, policy-influencing organizations such as the NSTA, AAAS, NSF, the National Research Council, the U.S. Office of Education Department of Civil Rights, NAACP, the National Governors’ Association, programs related to the Jacob Javits Grants for the Gifted and Talented, and others are summarized. The author’s interpretation of the various positions are presented herein. The article also explores the research base supporting the various policies on grouping by examining selected general research literature on grouping, followed by research that is science education specijic. Methodological issues color the research findings. The ethical and pragmatic implications of developing research and policy are discussed. The conclusions are that there is a dearth of recent empirical research specifically related to ability grouping in science, and that the time is ripe for the concerted development of a research agenda by key players in science education reform. Moreover, as controversial and value-laden as the topic is, it should be noted that grouping practices alone are unlikely to influence science education reform unless considered in the context of comprehensive restructuring efforts at the local school level.

Ability grouping, a practice that occurs in about 75% of schools in the United States (Trimble & Sinclair, 1987) and in most educational systems worldwide, has recently been attacked as unfair (particularly for minorities) and regressive by many major U.S. educational reformers and policymakers (Adler, 198 1; Goodlad, 1984). Moreover, its legality is being scrutinized by the U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights. There is by no means, however, unanimity of opinion about this practice, as this article will show. But because we are on the brink of major reform in U.S. science education, the decision either to eliminate or continue the practice of ability grouping in secondary science classrooms deserves careful examination.

The ability grouping issue raises two important questions that are addressed, although admittedly not definitively answered, in the body of this article:

1. Is the practice of ability grouping consistent with democratic principles? This is an ethical question that, for some, may be answered independently of empirical exploration. For others, the research data are useful in formulating a position, because a stance based solely on ethics seems as unlikely to result in consensus among policymakers,

0 1994 by the National Association for Research in Science Teaching Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0022-4308/94/020105-24

I06 LYNCH

practitioners, or the voting public-given the tradition in the United States of struggle between egalitarian and meritocratic urges in our collective psyche.

2. Is ability grouping an effective pedagogical practice, fostering maximum high achievement in science in general; and what are its effects on various groups of students (by social class, race, academic prowess)‘? This question may be addressed by examining the research base.

The first part of this article will document the progress of the ability grouping debate in science education on the national policy stage. The second part will focus on the research base and its intersection with policy, practice, and education reform.

Part I: Policies Affecting Ability Grouping and Science Education Reform

Science education reform does not take place in a political vacuum. Policy-making organizations influence education across the board (no matter what the subject), and their positions are crucial to understanding the development of practice in the schools. The policy landscape painted below regarding ability grouping in science education may provide some perspective on how change occurs in the U.S . educational system.

Ability grouping and the related practice of “tracking” are sometimes hard to distinguish and may overlap. Jeannie Oakes (1986a, p. 13), a researcher and policy leader in the “de- tracking” movement, defines ability grouping as dividing “academic subjects into classes geared for different levels for students of different abilities.” She defines tracking as “the practice of dividing students into separate classes for high-, average-, and low-achievers; it lays out different curriculum paths for students headed for college and for those who are bound directly for the workplace.” The difference between the two practices may be more of quantity than kind, although “tracking” has a widely held negative connotation.

To understand why the ability grouping question is important to current discussions about science education reform in the United States, it is useful to contrast the current science reform movement to the previous one in the post-Sputnik era (c. 1957 to the 1970s). Diane Ravitch, formerly the Assistant Secretary of Education in the Bush Administration, pointed out that the $2 billion budgeted by various federal agencies for science and mathematics education reform made the current program bigger and broader in scope than the initiative launched in 1957 (Kantrowitz & Wingert, 1992).

The post-Sputnik reform was a response to the Soviet/U.S. space-race, and its main goal was to produce more American scientists and engineers (Salinger, 1991). Consequently, most of the science curricula of that era were developed with scientists, rather than educators, as the major contributors (Klopfer & Champagne, 1990; Swartz, 1991). Some of these curricula were consciously aimed at the upper 20% of high school students-those who would go on to college and become scientists and engineers. The practice of ability grouping was assumed rather than questioned in that era. The resulting inquiry-based science curricula were probably far more effective for the brighter students than for the average or slow students (Snow & Yallow, 1982).

In contrast, the current reform not only acknowledges the need for highly qualified scientists and engineers but also emphasizes scientific, mathematical, and technological literacy for all students (Loman, 1983; Salinger, 1991). For instance, the goal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s (AAAS) Science for All Americans (Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1990) is to establish the “understandings and habits of mind that are essential for all citizens in a scientifically literate society.” Moreover, one of the stated specific intents of the new science education reforms is to give consideration to the special needs of women, minorities, and persons with disabilities.

ABILITY GROUPING POLICIESiSClENCE 107

Although this increased inclusiveness in science education reform rhetoric is, no doubt, born in part of altruistic, equity-based concerns, it is certainly true that “science pipeline issues” also compel this position. A report issued by the Congressional Research Service (Matthews, 1989) states clearly the problem that the shortage of highly trained scientists and engineers will cause:

The underrepresentation of minorities in science and engineering raises important concerns about both equal opportunity and the future capacity of the Nation to produce an adequate number of scientists and engineers for all purposes. Demographic data show a workforce increasingly composed of minorities, groups that have been historically underrepresented in the sciences. At issue is whether enough minorities can be encouraged to pursue degrees in science and engineering disciplines. (p. 5 )

In this case, the definition of “minority” can be expanded to include women, who with the exception of Asian-American females, are underrepresented in science and mathematics.

Not only are there shortages at upper levels in science and technology in the United States, but competent young people leaving high school and seeking employment in the world of business and industry have also been found sorely lacking in skills related to scientific literacy. Leaders in business and industry have repeatedly voiced their concerns that high school gradu- ates are not well enough prepared to work in a business environment that is ever more technical (Lund & McGuire, 1983).

It seems fairly clear that the United States needs people better trained in science, mathematics, and technology at all levels, not just the top. Moreover, these needs cannot be met unless members of minority groups are attracted to these areas and are adequately prepared. Conse- quently, a response to this confluence of problems has been, in some instances (as this article is about to document), to call for the elimination of ability grouping and to develop and raise standards for all students so that the “diameter” of the science pipeline will be increased.

The article summarizes the developing positions of key policy-making and policy- influencing organizations weighing in on the ability grouping debate.

Emerging Science Education Reform Positions

America 2000: A f lowed Either (Any) Position.

America 2000 (U.S. Department of Education, 1991) was a seminal policy document of the Bush Administration, and it continues to influence education reform in the present Clinton Administration. It set a national goal that “By the year 2000, U.S. students will be first in the world in science and mathematics achievement” (National Education Goal 4). Although Ameri- ca 2000 did not deal directly with the issue of ability grouping, the report called for the development of scientific and mathematical excellence at the upper levels, as it included both “Presidential Citations for Educational Excellence” for high school students and “Presidential Achievement Scholarships” based upon merit and need. The report also alluded favorably to magnet schools, which are often designed for gifted and talented students.

Simultaneously, however, America 2000 gave a strong message to develop the abilities of all students, as Goal 3 was that all U.S. students will leave grades four, eight, and twelve having demonstrated competencies in science and mathematics, as well as other subjects. Achievement tests would be developed to measure this goal. The report echoed the concerns mentioned earlier, stating that “our employers cannot hire enough qualified workers, . . . companies ex- port skilled work-or abandon projects that require it.” Moreover, it set as examples of “excel-

108 LYNCH

lent projects and inspired initiatives . . . Theodore Sizer’s Coalition for Essential Schools. . . ” (p. 19) and others, which have established heterogeneous grouping as an important philosophi- cal principle.

It is impossible to ascribe a specific stance on ability grouping to America 2000. The report seemed to leave the door open to either (any) point of view.

National Governors’ Association: Ensuring Opportunities for all Students.

The National Governors’ Association (1990, p. 29) has been a major impetus for school reform in the United States. In its Report of the Task Force on Education, Educating America: State Strategies for Achieving the National Educational Goals, it presented the following strategy: “Ensure that all children have the opportunity to take basic and advanced mathematics and science coursework from qualified teachers and to use adequate equipment, and increase the number of students enrolling in advanced courses.” This statement can be read to defend either side of the ability grouping argument. The position of this group is important because of its power and influence, and also because President Bill Clinton was a prominent member of this group when he was governor of Arkansas.

The National Science Foundation: A Variable to Be Manipulated.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) does not have a specific department per se that predetermines acceptable policy stances for projects to be funded, but rather tries to support a variety of projects that may encompass various philosophies. Consequently, NSF has no official posture on ability grouping.

In Educating Americans for the 21st Century ( 1 983), a report to the National Science Board funded and widely distributed by NSF, statements by various working groups seemed to assume a common (heterogeneously grouped) science curriculum for grades K- 10, but then suggested additional and more specialized studies for those who wish to go on in science. For instance:

All students, regardless of career goals, could follow a common chemistry syllabus (integrated or associated with other science areas), at least up to tenth grade. From this point we would recommend exploration of a TWO track option [emphasis ours]-additional studies in chemistry for the general student (possibly integrated with physics), and more specialized chemistry study for those intending further work in this field. (Appendix D: Report of the Working Group on Chemistry Education, p. 41)

However, i t was clearly stated that the views expressed in this document did not necessarily reflect those of NSF or the National Science Board.

Dr. Andy Molnar, Program Director for the Applications of Advanced Technologies, a research and development program in the Directorate of Education and Human Resources, was suggested by NSF as a policy resource. Dr. Molnar pointed out that NSF supports many different innovations in science education curricula and materials development (personal communication, Feb. 4, 1992). He said that there is no overarching philosophy on ability grouping guiding the funding. An evaluation component exploring the achievement of a broad base of students is built into the various funded projects.

Dr. Molnar stated that some research funded by NSF focuses on opening up subjects such as calculus earlier than is the common practice, and to a greater number of U.S. students. “The question is, what are the limits of potential for kids? Rather than improving what currently

ABILITY GROUPING POLlCIESiSCIENCE I09

exists, can we produce major break-throughs in performance?’ Dr. Molnar, when pressed to discuss ability grouping, responded in a balanced, if equivocal, fashion. “The issue of homoge- neity and heterogeneity is a variable that can be manipulated by teachers to increase [the effectiveness of] the instructional environment in a way that they want.” Dr. Molnar cited research that points to the contributions of high-ability, motivated students to heterogeneous classrooms where group problem solving is emphasized; but he also noted that most teachers believe that ability grouping is useful as a management tool. He cited the work of Julian Stanley and his colleagues at Johns Hopkins University (funded in part by the NSF) that showed brighter students can become intellectually lazy if not challenged properly by being brought together in groups with students of similar abilities.

The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA): Against Ability Grouping.

The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), the largest single professional organization for U.S. science teachers with a membership of 50,000, is a leader in science education reform. NSTA’s “Scope, Sequence, and Coordination of Secondary School Science (SS&C)” reform curriculum is currently being piloted at hundreds of schools in five states (Alaska, California, Texas, Iowa, and North Carolina) and Puerto Rico. This is an ambitious project (sponsored by NSF and the U.S. Department of Education) that combines integrated science instruction, a delivery system similar to European approach (where students take a subject such as biology a couple of days per week over a 3- or 4-year high school course of study), as well as a substantial increase in the science class hour requirements.

The NSTA reform curriculum has a strong interest in promoting scientific literacy, not just the production of top-IeveI scientists, and has de-emphasized or condemned any sort of ability grouping. A NSTA document on SS&C makes its position clear:

There is an incorrect assumption widely held that only certain children are capable of learning science and mathematics. Students, identified at an early age as “most able” or “most intelligent,” are tracked into future coursework in science and math. These are often the most advantaged. The remainder are systematically filtered out of science and math. The research-based underlying principles of the Scope Sequence and Coordination initiative are that science is needed by everyone and that everyone is capable of learning and enjoying science. . . .

The emphasis of SS&C is on science for 011 students. Truly gifted students will not be overlooked. They are likely to be a different mix of gender and ethnicity, and they will be rewarded for the quality of the learning and thinking rather than rushing through and completing coursework ahead of their peers. Such gifted students, as well as other more enthusiastic and interested students, will be provided enrichment activities to maintain their interest. They can also be given additional responsibilities in cooperative learning situations, e.g. , students teaching students. (National Science Teachers Association, 1990, p. 2)

An interview with Dr. Russell Aiuto, the Research and Development Director for the SS&C project in the fall of 1991 (Lynch & Clemmit, 1992), explored the NSTA position. Both NSTA and Dr. Aiuto do not believe in dividing students into ability groups. “This [SS&C] is a straight, extreme, egalitarian program that does not believe in tracking.” Dr. Aiuto argues that there are a number of reasons the higher-achieving students should be integrated with the rest of the student population. “I think the really talented succeed in spite of us, not because of us.” He also says that a weakness in our science programs has been the communications skills of our upper-level

I10 LYNCH

scientists. Consequently, he believes, by mixing everyone together, the high-achieving students will develop the areas [communication] in which they are weak. He says, “I think most science education reformers are willing to see tracking fall by the wayside.”

But even with the NSTA position on ability grouping clearly staked out, a recent issue of the ASCD Curriculum Update (O’Neil, 1992) reported that several sites piloting the SS&C project continue to offer different science courses to different groups, citing students’ willingness to do homework, their prior achievement in science, and their English-language proficiency level, as well as parental pressure, for reasons to continuc tracking.

American Association for the Advunrement of Science (AAAS): Project 2061: Moving Awuy From Ability Grouping.

The AAAS’s Project 2061 may be the most encompassing of the science education reform initiatives. With an emphasis on scientific literacy for ull students, the goal of Project 2061 is to improve the quality, increase the relevance, and broaden the availability of science, mathematics, and technology education for all Americans.

In an interview with Sheila Harty, communications director of Project 206 1 , she said that three phases of the project (a core list of what students should know, outlined in the 1990 Science for All Americans by Rutherford and Ahlgren; benchmarks for scientific literacy; and implementation in selected schools by 1994) have been planned by the Project 2061 staff (Lynch & Clemmit, 1992).

When asked about ability grouping in the development of the new curriculum, Harty said that Project 2061’s position is that science is for ull students. Therefore, AAAS would not recommend maintaining the grouping of students by achievement levels. She stated:

If students haven’t been exposed to good teaching or good science or different approaches to the phenomena and the process . . . then the student themselves might think that they wcrcn’t good and thercforc didn’t try. So how can you make the judgment-they are low ability in this and high ability in that-until you have trcated all studcnts equally and given them all the best exposure in multiple ways. (Lynch & Clemmit, 1992, p. 6)

Harty also pointed out that AAAS was not against initiatives geared toward developing more scientists at the national level, but Project 2061 is a reform initiative in science literacy for all students. The project has defined a core content that puts a “floor” under the amount of scientific knowledge an individual should have at different points in his or her life. There is no “ceiling” on that knowledge. Good students can take the material presented as far as they wish.

National Research Council: A Social Commitment to Encourage All Students to Study Science.

The National Research Council (NRC), the principal operating agency of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering, is coordinating the development of K- 12 standards for science education, which is scheduled to be completed by the fall of 1994 (National Committee on ,C cience Education Standards and Assessment, 1992). The NRC was commissioned to convene extremely broad-based and representative working groups of important policy players in science to develop national science education standards. The initial document made clear the group’s social commitment:

ABILITY GROUPING POLICIESiSCIENCE 1 1 1

The science standards will encourage all students-including members of populations defined by race, ethnicity, economic status, gender, and physical and intellectual cczpcicity [emphasis ours] to study science throughout their school years and to pursue careers in science. . . . The standards will advocate forcefully the inclusion of those who have not traditionally received encouragement and opportunities to learn science-women and girls, all racial and ethnic groups, the physically and educationally challenged, and those with limited proficiency in English-as well as those who have. (National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment, 1992, p. 8)

The working committees for this project include well-known “de-tracking” advocates, such as John Goodlad and Jeannie Oakes. Although the initial document makes no specific statement about ability grouping, one set of standards is being prepared for all students, and the intention to include all American children in science education reform is forcefully made.

The U . S . Department of Education Eisenhower Project: Allows a Variety of Approaches.

The Eisenhower Project is the recently funded and established office in the Department of Education charged with oversight of the massive systemic change initiatives for K- 12 science and mathematics education at the state level. It encourages planning for overall reform of science and mathematics education in each state. Eve Bither, Director of the Project (personal communication, Oct. 6, 1992), said that the thrust of the grant programs are to help all children learn more science and mathematics. There are no policy guidelines regarding ability grouping, but specific rules for each grant competition may suggest or allow a variety of approaches.

To conclude, although none of the policy-making organizations above have positions toward ability grouping described in ethical terms, several seemed to lean toward an antigrouping policy that has strong egalitarian overtones (see Table 1) . Only Dr. Aiuto at NSTA and Dr. Molnar at NSF mentioned the need to evaluate the impact of new science education reform efforts on various ability groups empirically, with Dr. Aiuto allowing that to date there had not been a “real systematic design” for NSTA’s SS&C efforts at the time of the fall 1991 interview.

Positions of Key Policymakers: General Trends

Although not directly charged with science education or its reform per se, many organizations have staked out policy stances on ability grouping. Even within the U.S . Department of Education, there are a variety of positions held on this practice, from the neutral one stated above for the Eisenhower Project, to the vigilant but cautious position of the Office for Civil Rights (discussed below), to the concerned but positive approach of the Office of Gifted and Talented Education (to follow). I

U.S. Department of Education Ofice for Civil Rights: Ability Grouping Can Be Illegal.

The U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) examines the practice of ability grouping in relation to Title VI regulations. Its concern is “when a facially neutral [emphasis author’s] practice, such as assignment to classes on the basis of ability or achieve-

I The impact of the ability grouping controversy is viewed in this article from the standpoint of its el-fect on gifted and talented students. Of equal or greater importance are the potential results of “de-tracking” or “inclusion” for special education students, which is both beyond the scope of this article and deserving of its own treatment at another time.

I12 LYNCH

Table 1 Summary of Interpretation of Policy Stances Regarding Ability Grouping

Position

Organization

Favor programs Favor for gifted and

“de-tracking”/ talented/ heterogeneous homogeneous

grouping Neutral grouping ~ ~

The Bush Administration-America

National Governors’ Association National Science Foundation National Science Teachers’ Association American Association for the

Advancement of Science National Research Council U.S . Dept. of Education-Eisenhower

U.S. Dept. of Education-Office of

National Association for the Advance-

Carnegie Council on Adolescent

U.S. Dept. of Education-Jacob Javits

2000

Project

Civil Rights

ment of Colored People

Development

Gifted and Talented Education Program

National Research Center on Gifted and Talented Education

X X X

X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

ment, has a racially disproportionate effect” (draft of Office for Civil Rights memorandum: Ability Grouping Investigative Procedures Guidance, 1992). Specifically, if an educational practice has the result of creating “racially identifiable” classes, then the public educational agency responsible must be able to defend the objectivity of its grouping practice, show that improvement in achievement has occurred as a result of the grouping practice, and demonstrate that its grouping practice is more successful than equally effective alternative grouping practices that result in less racial disproportionality.

Because OCR allows standardized test scores as evidence of objectivity, which many have contended to be biased toward minorities (Lynch & Mills, 1990; Oakes, 1992), it would seem that this aspect of the investigative policy guidelines is fairly toothless. On the other hand, requiring educational agencies to show achievement improvements for students placed in ability groups (compared to other alternative educational arrangements) gets at pithier issues in the current controversy.

It should be noted that the focus of OCR’s oversight on matters related to ability grouping is limited to civil rights violations-situations regarding minorities. Consequently, schools that practice ability grouping where the population is essentially homogeneous are exempt from OCR scrutiny. Because the practice of ability grouping has occurred for years in all types of schools, including racially and socio-economically homogeneous schools, racism and classism have not always been a focus of the debate.

ABILITY GROUPING POLICIES/SCIENCE 1 I3

The NAACP Response: Ability Grouping I s Undemocratic.

In responding to a request for a position statement on ability grouping, the NAACP provided the paper “Why Ability Grouping Must End: Achieving Excellence and Equity in American Education,” by Jomills Braddock and Robert Slavin (1992) of Johns Hopkins Center for the Research on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Students. The following excerpt affords an idea of the thrust of this piece:

Ability grouping is ineffective. It is harmful to many students. It inhibits development of interracial respect, understanding and friendship. It undermines democratic values and contributes to a stratified society. There are effective and practical alternatives. Ability grouping must end. Academic tracking is an anachronism. , . . The effects . . . on student learning opportunities are especially negative for students of color who are overrepre- sented among the low groups. (p. 15)

The excerpt above leaves little doubt as to the authors’ ethical stance on the practice of ability grouping, although statements regarding their perception of the efficacy of the practice are woven into their position. But one of the authors, Braddock, in his other writing seems less certain about empirical data supporting the existence of “effective and practical alternatives” to ability grouping. He states, “the research usually does not describe comparisons of instructional approaches that would illuminate more effective educational practice [than tracking] for dealing with student diversity in the middle grades” (Braddock & McPartland, 1993, p. 145).

It seems that whenever the question of practical alternatives to ability grouping arises, the practice most often recommended is “cooperative learning”.* Probably the best nationally known advocate for cooperative learning is the other author of the NAACP position paper, Robert Slavin. He is also a key figure in the interpretation of the research on ability grouping (Slavin, 1990a, 1990b), to be discussed in Part I1 of this article.

The Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development: President Clinton’s Ambiguous Position.

The Carnegie Corporation of New York is one of many powerful and respected policy- influencing groups entering this debate. Recommendations of the Task Force on Education of Young Adolescents, which wrote Turning Points: Preparing Youth for the 21st Century (Car- negie Council on Adolescent Development, 1989), are important for two reasons. First, this report is one of the most often-cited documents influencing practice in U.S . middle schools. Second, the Task Force included as one of its signatories, President Bill Clinton. Consequently, the views expressed in this 100-page Carnegie document may give an indication of future policy directions.

The document “calls for middle grade schools that . . . ensure success f o r all students through the elimination of tracking by achievement level and promotion of cooperative learning” (p. 9). The rationale is that

This kind of tracking (by ability) has proven to be one of the most divisive and damaging practices in existence. Time and again, young people placed in lower academic tracks or

2 Cooperative learning is arrangement whereby small groups of heterogeneous students are formed for the purpose of learning material specified by the teacher. Within the group, students are to help each other, motivated by both group and individual goals.

114 LYNCH

classes, often during the middle grades, are locked into dull, repetitive instructional programs leading at best to minimum competencies. The psychic numbing these youth experience from a “dumbed-down” curriculum contrasts sharply with the exciting opportunities for learning and critical thinking that students placed in the higher tracks or classes may experience. (p. 9)

The report comes out forcefully against tracking, but does this mean that President Clinton is on record as being against ability grouping as well? When Clinton was governor of Arkansas he targeted education as a major initiative. Hillary Clinton was chosen to lead the Arkansas commission on education improvement. As a result of these initiatives, the Arkansas Gover- nor’s School for the Gifted and Talented became a national model. In addition, Arkansas standards for school accreditation were changed to require programming for gifted and talented children (personal communication, Martha Bass, Administrator for the State of Arkansas Gifted and Talented Programs, Oct. 5 , 1992). As governor, Clinton frequently spoke to groups of educators and parents of talented students, including a speech at the annual conference of the National Association of the Gifted and Talented. How Clinton’s record of support for special programs for gifted children will play out against the position taken as a member of the Carnegie Task Force (which clearly calls for the elimination of tracking) remains to be seen.3

When considering the positions of organizations calling for the elimination of tracking or ability grouping, it seems universally true that the emphasis is on inequities experienced by those in the lower tracks. In the call to eliminate ability grouping, there seems to be far less concern about the effects of de-tracking for those in the high-ability groups than for low-ability groups, although Braddock and Slavin (1992) in their NAACP paper conceded that

There is only one aspect of ability grouping .research that engenders serious debate concerning achievement effects. This has to do with effects of programs for the gifted. (P. 6)

The next sections provide summaries of the policies formulated by advocates for gifted and talented children.

The US. Department of Education (USDOE): Jacob Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Program.

Although not specifically charged with science education or curriculum reform, the USDOE Jacob Javits Gifted and Talented Students Program has an important policy influence on K- 12 education programs nationally. The Javits Program is a modest effort funded by Congress in 1988 to monitor competitive grants funded by the U.S. Department of Education; to establish a National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented (NRCG/T); and to serve as a “national focal point” for gifted education. The USDOE is currently reviewing research about ability grouping, but at this time no official statement is available. Understandably, these policymakers have been anxiously following the ability grouping debate, as well as funding further study on the topic.

In a 1991 interview, Patricia O’Connell-Ross, head of Javits Program at the USDOE, expressed her personal opinions about the current trends to obliterate ability grouping in the

3 Note that Hillary Clinton is on the board of trustees of the Children’s Defense Fund, an organization that Oakes (1992) cites as being against ability grouping owing to the “second generation segregation” issues.

ABILITY GROUPING POLICIESISCIENCE 115

United States (Lynch & Clemmit, 1992). In response to proposals calling for the elimination of grouping she stated:

It’s not really getting at the heart of the problem, which is all kids need a richer, better educational experience, that’s more challenging to them. But not all kids are the same.

She thought that gifted programs should not be eliminated at this time. “The evidence that we have is pretty clear that gifted programs help gifted kids, and they don’t harm anybody else.” She pointed out that if this is true, it does not make any sense to stop working with and developing the talents of the gifted students. O’Connell-Ross said that a partial solution to present problems lies not in ability grouping, but in setting educational standards. If standards were developed and students were tested on whether or not they have met these standards, then we would have a better way of determining in what types of programs students belong.

O’Connell-Ross also pointed out that the new U.S. Secretary of Education, Richard Riley (formerly governor of South Carolina) instituted a major (successful) educational reform in South Carolina that included raising $20 million through state sales taxes for programs aimed at talented and motivated students as part of wide-ranging efforts to elevate standards (personal communication, March 7 , 1993).

The National Research Center on Gifted and Talented Education (NRCGIT).

The National Research Center on Gifted and Talented Education (NRCG/T) is funded under the Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Education Act and is a cooperative arrangement among four universities: University of Connecticut, University of Georgia, the University of Virginia, and Yale University. The Directorate is housed at the University of Connecticut. NRCGiT often commissions research with policy implications. Not surprisingly, a good deal of the work has focused on the ability grouping issue, resulting in the following sampling of published and disseminated recommendations on ability grouping:

Although some school programs that group children by ability have only small effects, other grouping programs help children a great deal. Schools should therefore resist calls for the wholesale elimination of ability grouping. ( J . Kulik, 1992)

Gifted and talented students should spend the majority of their schoolday with others of similar abilities and interests. (Rogers, 1992)

Mixed ability cooperative learning should be used sparingly for gifted and talented students, perhaps only for social skill development programs. (Rogers, 1992)

Cooperative learning in the heterogeneous classroom should not be substituted for specialized programs and services for academically talented students. (A. Robinson, 1992)

The contrast between these statements and those presented previously, such as the Carnegie Foundation’s and the National Science Teachers Association’s, can hardly be more striking.

Other organizations such as the National Association of the Gifted and Talented and the TAG (Talented and Gifted) branch of the Council for Exceptional Children have expressed similar strong concerns regarding the current trend to abolish all forms of ability grouping, including programs for the gifted and talented. The “gifted and talented lobby” is often looked upon with suspicion by some of the de-tracking advocates, who may believe that both racial and class differences are integral to the ability grouping debate. For instance, Jeannie Oakes (1992), one of the principal advocates for de-tracking, states:

116 LYNCH

Fearing that minority enrollment leads to lower educational standards, White and wealthy parents often request their children be assigned to more racially and socio-economically homogeneous gifted and talented programs or honors-level courses. Although not all poli- tically efficacious parents are White, in most schools White parents, especially middle- class White parents, better understand the inequalities in the school’s structure and feel more confident that the school will respond positively to their pressure. (p. 9)

It should be clear that the ability grouping debate is far from a simple discussion of school scheduling strategies and classroom-management techniques. Rather, the discussion has far- reaching political, ideological, and normative overtones, which Oakes (1 992) discusses intel- ligently in detail, although admittedly from an anti-grouping stance.

Part I of this article provided an overview of the policies under formulation relevant to science education and ability grouping. It demonstrated that at the national level, a fairly extensive debate about this issue is currently well underway. For some, the question asked earlier in this report-Is the practice of ability grouping consistent with democratic principles in the U. S .?-can be straightforwardly answered on moral grounds. If the answer is no, then the debate need go no further. It should be pointed out that the current educational climate in the United States is characterized by the increasing diversity of the students in the public schools. The observation that disadvantaged children and children of color inhabit the lower tracks in disproportionate numbers in ethnically mixed schools has led to equity concerns. Consequently, some “see” ability grouping as a second-generation segregation issue, a legal and ethical issue, and want to end the practice.

But others do not find an ethical conflict between the practice of ability grouping and democratic principles. Democracy in the United States includes a fierce belief in individualism, choice, and rewards for hard work and talent. Meritocratic principles have often clashed with egalitarian concerns.

A recent example of a pro-grouping stance can be found in the Cleveland Public Schools. The African-American mayor, Mike White, has an aggressive plan to improve Cleveland’s ailing urban schools, where the majority of the students are African-American. The Washington Post (1993) reports:

The new White-backed school board recently proposed reforms designed to reduce busing and restore quality and standards by partially replacing busing with an enlarged magnet school system. The initiative would replace the general trucksystem [emphasis ours] with a set of three choices aimed at entry after graduation to four-year college, a two-year associate degree program or a licensed apprenticeship program. (Edsall, 1993, p. A3)

But ability grouping, even by choice, is still ability grouping (Gamoran, 1987; Oakes, 1985). Because some individualization of curricular content is ineluctable (be it within the classroom or across the school system), then some sort of grouping practice logically follows because class sizes do not allow the tutoring of students individually. The question then, is: What sort of grouping patterns are defensible and effective? Part I1 of this article examines the research base that addresses this profoundly important question.

Part 11: Examining the Research Base

The policy positions documented in Part I of this article, which encourage the elimination of ability grouping, have already had their effect on school practice (James, 1993; Welsh, 1993). In the spring of 1993, the present author attended several meetings where science teachers, curriculum directors, and principals stated that the research shows that all students perform better when

ABILITY GROUPING POLICIES/SCIENCE 117

placed in heterogeneous groups. Moreover, they are acting on their beliefs by eliminating honors courses and special classes for low-achieving students. But what is the research base that drives decisions (for some) on ability grouping in science? This section will review some of the research that has fueled the ability grouping policy debate. It is interesting to note, however, that in examining both research and policy articles, the research evidence is often cited selectively, according to the policy position to be taken.

Searching the Literature

A search of the literature on ability grouping in secondary school science education revealed remarkably little current empirical research specifically on this topic in the United States. An ERIC search (conducted in January 1992) of primary research on the efficacy of ability grouping on American students’ achievement in or attitudes toward science from 1982 to 1991 did not reveal a single relevant study, with the exception of a new one by Thomas Hoffer (1992) of the University of Illinois, which will be discussed later. (The effects of tracking on course selection in science, however, was explored in three articles, and this issue is closely related.) Clearly a need exists for more empirical research with sound experimental design using control groups (Brad- dock & McPartland, 1993; Hoffer, 1992).

On the other hand, a general ERIC search on ability grouping (sans “science” descriptor) during this same time frame resulted in hundreds of citations. With a few noteworthy exceptions, the assumption often seems to be that the ability grouping issue is not subject specific, but can be decided wholesale for all subjects. (This premise is worthy of further examination, but is beyond the scope of this article.) In fact, over the last six decades, it appears that the topic of ability grouping in general seems to be one of the most studied and discussed educational issues-to the extent that there are several excellent reviews of the literature, as well as “reviews of reviews” on the topic (Gamoran, 1987; Kulik, 1991; Passow, 1962; Rogers, 1991; Slavin, 1990a). But despite this body of research and rhetoric, there is little overall agreement among experts (Gamoran, 1987; Kulik, 1991; Murphy & Hallinger, 1989; Rogers, 1991).

Because several excellent summary reviews (cited above) have already been done, this part of the article will only discuss the work that seems to have had the most influence (most often cited) in framing the current discussion.

General Research on Ability Grouping

Kulik and Kulik: Meta-analyses as Tools.

In 1982, Chen-lin C. Kulik and James A. Kulik published a meta-analysis on the effects of ability grouping on secondary school students (Kulik & Kulik, 1982). They analyzed the results of 52 studies (prejudged to be methodologically adequate) on ability grouping in secondary schools using the effect size statistic. The Kuliks found small but positive effects for achievement overall, with high-ability students in enriched or honors classes seeming to gain the most. They also found that students in ability-grouped classes developed more positive attitudes toward the subjects they were studying than did students in ungrouped classes. The Kuliks followed this original meta- analysis with subsequent meta-analyses on related topics such as ability grouping in elementary schools (Kulik & Kulik, 1984), programs of accelerated instruction (Kulik & Kulik, 1984), as well as related articles (Kulik & Kulik, 1987, 1991).

In 199 1, James Kulik revisited his earlier analyses. He re-examined the criteria for methodologically acceptable studies and conducted an updated meta-analysis. This time he examined the data by type of grouping program-multilevel classes, cross-grade grouping, within-class

I18 LYNCH

grouping, accelerated classes, and enriched classes. His conclusions on the effects of ability grouping on achievement are summarized:

A careful re-analysis of findings from all the studies (143 in all) showed that higher aptitude students usually benefit academically from ability grouping. The academic bcncfits are positive but usually small when the grouping is done as a part of a broader program for students of all abilities. . . , Benefits are positive and oftcn large when in special classes for the gifted and talented. The larger gains are usually found in classes that are accelerated. . . . Grouping programs usually have smaller effects on middle and lower aptitude learners. . . . (Kulik, 1991, p. 45)

Kulik went on to say that the ability grouping results for noncognitive outcomes are less clear and that the effects on student self-esteem are small. If anything, Kulik (1991) concluded, multilevel classes may cause quick learners to lose some of their self-assurance, whereas on the other hand, slow learners gain some badly needed self-confidence.

Jeannie Oakes: Advocate of De-trucking.

Jeannie Oakes, in her 1985 study of tracking in secondary schools, Keeping Truck, came to a completely different conclusion than did the Kuliks regarding tracking and ability grouping. Oakes’ work, which was done as part of John Goodlad’s A Study of Schooling, was based upon the observation of hundreds of mathematics and English classrooms in U.S. junior and senior high schools. Tracking or ability grouping in a variety of forms was a common practice in all but one school.

Oakes’ view (1985) is that the bulk of the research literature on tracking indicates that even under usual circumstances, nearly all students can learn as well in heterogeneous groups as in tracked classrooms and that students identified as average or below average do better in heterogeneous settings. There is a marked disparity between Oakes’ conclusions and that of Kulik’s, stated above.

Oakes’ observations led her to conclude that the quality of the classroom instructional environment, and the access to what she calls “high status knowledge,” were radically different in high-track and low-track classrooms, with middle-ability classrooms falling in-between. More- over, no matter what the mechanism that determined placement into the various tracks-via guidance counselors, ability measures, or student/parental choice-it was obvious that the lower tracks contained a disproportionate number of minority and low-income students. Oakes concluded that educational experiences and ambitions are stultified by the tracking system and called for “de-tracking” American schools. For Oakes, equity means continuous access to educational opportunities while in school-access to high-level knowledge, positive instructional environments, and the opportunity to maintain or increase self-esteem.

In a later article, she conceded that “some tracking systems appear to provide a cognitive advantage for students who are in the top tracks. . . . When students are placed in accelerated courses or programs for the gifted and talented, they appear to benefit.” Still, she concluded that “Tracking and ability grouping . . . may obstruct efforts to achieve two highly valued goals of schooling: helping students reach high levels of academic excellence and providing opportunities for all students to reach those levels” (Oakes, 1987, p. 133).

Although Oakes has zeroed in on tracking as an outdated, flawed, and often inequitable practicefor lower-trackstudents, there are still lots of unanswered questions about what to do with highly motivated and able students if ability grouping is eliminated. In addition, Oakes’ research methods were not without criticism. Notably, she had not done comparisons of achievement and

ABILITY GROUPING POLICIES/SCIENCE I19

affective outcomes in grouped versus nongrouped classrooms, although such classes were part of her original study.

In her book, Keeping Track (1985), Jeannie Oakes relegated the meta-analyses and argu- ments of the Kuliks regarding grouping to reference notes. In turn, Kulik (1919) claimed that

Oakes’ conclusions . . . are based upon her own selective and idiosyncratic review of older summaries of the literature and her own uncontrolled classroom observations. Objective analysis of controlled studies provide no support for her speculations. (p. 46)

Oakes has also been characterized as one of a group of “Charismatic and articulate educators . . , [who] can make broad simplistic claims that their recommendations are ‘research- supported’ with little challenge from non-researchers in the typical audience” (Rogers, 199 1,

If, as Oakes suggested, schools are to be de-tracked, then something must replace these practices in meeting the needs of students with varying abilities. Robert Slavin (cited earlier as the co-author of the NAACP position paper) has advocated cooperative learning as an effective alternative. He also offered his own reviews of the literature on ability grouping.

p. 1).

Robert Slavin: Cooperative Learning as the Alternative.

Robert Slavin (1987, 1990a) wrote two major reviews of ability grouping, using what he called a best-evidence synthesis. His 1990 study on ability grouping at the secondary level used essentially the same studies as the 1982 meta-analysis done by the Kuliks with the following differences: Slavin excluded two studies allowed by the Kuliks in 1982, and he included four additional studies. In all, Slavin examined 29 studies on the effects of tracking. Not surprisingly, his statistical results were not much different from the Kuliks’. Kulik (1991), in turn, reported that his most recent analysis found a .89 positive correlation with Slavin’s 1990 results on multilevel class grouping.

But the Kuliks’ and Slavin’s interpretations of these data are remarkably different, with Slavin concluding

that since it does not have much effect on the achievement of low, average or high ability students, that . . . decisions about whether or not to ability group must be based on other than likely effects on achievement. Given the antidemocratic, anti-egalitarian nature of ability grouping, the burden of proof should be on those who would group rather than those who favor heterogeneous grouping. (Slavin, 1990a, p. 494)

Some caveats may be in order when interpreting Slavin’s results and conclusions, however. Slavin eliminated from his analysis programs for the gifted and talented-accelerated and enriched classes. These are the types of programs that have been found to have the largest effect sizes (median effect sizes were .87 and .40, respectively, reported in Kulik, 1991). What is fairly apparent is that the practice of “grouping” alone, without adjusting the curriculum in any important way via acceleration or enrichment, does not result in achievement gains different from those obtained from heterogeneous grouping situations.

What this has meant in terms of education practice is that some schools group talented students by ability but provide essentially the same curriculum to all groups of students, regardless of group. This results in minimal achievement effects for students in the high-ability groups, and the schools probably need not have bothered with the grouping practice. On the other hand, if schools provide an appropriately differentiated curricula (faster pacing and more complex material) to talented and motivated students, then achievement effects are likely to be substantial.

120 LYNCH

Another criticism of Slavin’s analyses had to do with the appropriateness of the assessment devices used. The achievement effects of ability grouping on gifted and talented students may not always be adequately assessed by standard, age-in-grade, achievement measures employed by the research studies he analyzed. The ceiling on standardized tests may be too low to measure accurately gains for high-ability students (see Mills & Durden, 1992, for a discussion of this), consequently causing group differences to be obscured.

Slavin stated that the “burden of proof” regarding ability grouping is on those who would group, owing to egalitarian and democratic concerns (see quote above). But if ability grouping is unethical, then no empirical data are required to defend the cessation of this practice, and bending the research base to fit seems disingenuous. If grouping by ability is consistent with democratic principles (although its abuses may not be) and because it has been widely practiced in the United States and internationally, then perhaps the burden of proof is at least equally on those who suggest major shifts in practice at a time when confidence in the U.S. education system is not at its highest. Oakes, for instance, identified a problem in tracking, but has admitted that alternatives to tracking are as yet unclear, beyond calling for a major restructuring and rethinking of our educational system and seeing some hope in cooperative learning (Oakes, 1987). But merely substituting cooperative learning for ability grouping may be insufficient, especially for the gifted and talented (see Mills & Durden, 1992; Robinson, 1990; Slavin, 1990b). What constitutes “egalitarianism” or even “fairness” seems open to various interpretations.

Adam Gamoran: Mathematical Models Predict Effects of Change

Adam Gamoran and his colleagues have done extensive work on the effects of ability grouping, using complex mathematical models (Gamoran, 1987, 1989b, 1992; Garnoran & Mare, 1989). In an excellent review of survey and ethnographic research on this topic (Gamoran & Berends, 1987) the authors’ most consistent finding was that “students in academic tracks are more likely to plan attending college and more likely to actually enroll, even with controls for plans and achievement prior to tracking” (p. 418).

But their review found mixed results for the effects of tracking on achievement. “It is somewhat puzzling that the effects of tracking (on achievement and attitudes) are neither greater nor more consistent than they have been found to be . . . inconsistent at best” (p. 420). Gam- oran and Berends (1987) said that ethnographic research such as that done by Oakes brings a consistent message about the effects of tracking-that it creates differences in students’ attitudes and behavior that may be further linked to achievement and post-high-school aspirations. These authors also cautioned, however, that there is ambiguity about the causal order of tracking and the polarization process-students’ achievement and attitudes may differ prior to track placement, which may in turn be due to the effects of social class and other pre-existing circumstances.

Gamoran’s most recent study (1992), on the access to high school honors English classes in the transition from middle school to high school, is noteworthy for many reasons, not the least of which are methodological. Gamoran combined qualitative research with quantitative research, with the result being a much more three-dimensional and credible analysis of the key factors that contribute to track placement and the consequent access to opportunities. He found that lower-class and minority students may be judged more rigorously on standardized test scores for access to honors classes than their white and middle-class counterparts. Furthermore, the judgments made about a student’s ability in middle school may carry far-reaching conse-

ABILITY GROUPING POLICIES/SCIENCE 121

quences, with some school districts being far more adept at reassessment and giving students a chance to access honors English classes than others.

Summary of General Research on the Achievement Effects of Grouping.

How is it that these researchers arrived at such very different conclusions? A major factor was their differences in research methods. The Kuliks, for example, used studies of randomly selected or matched groups-low ability students in heterogeneously grouped classrooms compared with low ability students in homogeneous classrooms-for their meta-analyses and compared between-groups results. Although Slavin’s methods were similar to those used by the Kuliks, he disallowed a group of studies in his analysis that seriously affected his research conclusions.

Oakes, on the other hand, took a more qualitative approach and compared the educational environments of high- and low-ability students, and found them to differ greatly. Her conclusion may be summarized with the word “inequitable,” whereas others might view the same situation as “inevitable,” given pre-existing conditions, such as social class (see, for example, Jencks et al., 1972). On the other hand, the ability grouping debate may also be viewed as a small component of the larger issue of education restructuring (Newmann, 1993), a position that will be discussed in the conclusions of this article.

For the problem of ability grouping in general, the survey, ethnographic, and experimental research reviewed here helps to define a problem in U.S. education-the conflict between equity and excellence goals in the ability grouping debate. Unfortunately, the research literature offers neither consensus nor clear lines of demarcation among ethics, empirical analysis, and policy (see Kyle, Abell, Roth, & Gallagher, 1992, for elaborated discussion of this type of problem). Researchers have become advocates, and some advocates have become policymakers, lobbyists, and proselytizers. But while solutions seem to be few and nebulous (Murphy & Hallinger, 1989), at least the dimensions of this problem are coming into focus. The following discussion summarizes the salient issues for researchers and practitioners interested in ability grouping in science education.

Research on Abilio Grouping in Science Education

What are the achievement effects of ability grouping on students in secondary science classes? The major reviews listed above shed faint light on this topic. Slavin’s analysis found no discemable pattern of findings with respect to different subjects. Of the studies reviewed by Slavin (1990a), four dealt with secondary science with median effect sizes of - .25, 0, + .22, and -.04-effect sizes judged to be small or insignificant. Moreover, three of these studies were done in the 1960s and one in 1927; their age is a limitation acknowledged by Slavin (1990a).

Gamoran (1987) found that placement in an academic track gave students a significant achievement advantage in mathematics, science, and other subjects, but this may have been largely due to differential course-taking-students had taken more academically oriented courses. But the effect of an advanced math and science course was more powerful than the effect of simply adding the course. Given the fact that females and minorities are often underrepresented in science courses, Gamoran illuminated an interesting fact:

By examining track assignment and track outcomes simultaneously, Gamoran and Mare showed that the favorable assignment pattern for blacks meant that tracking helped to

122 LYNCH

compensate for the initial advantage of whites over blacks in mathematics achievement . . . ; blacks’ achievement became closer to that of whites than it would have in the absence of tracking . . . females were more likely to be assigned to the college track (than males), so on the average their math achievement deficit became smaller than it would have been in the absence of tracking. (Camoran, 1989a, p. 14)

Because successful mathematics course-taking is often seen as the gatekeeper for both science achievement and college success, it is not unreasonable to suppose that tracking has functioned in a compensatory fashion for some blacks and females in science classes. On the other hand, more minority students (than white students, or black students who reap benefits from placement in high-ability groups) may be negatively affected by tracking by being hin- dered from access to the academic tracks.

Gamoran examined the knotty problem of education (achievement) goals and equity and concluded that

In comparison to traditional whole-class instruction in heterogeneous classes, ability grouping produces higher average achievement but more inequality. This finding is particularly problematic at the secondary level because there the inequality of results very likely stems in part from inequality of access to effective instruction. Improvement of the quality of low-track instruction would both raise average achievement and reduce inequality of results, but whether this goal can be accomplished has yet to be demonstrated. Grouping and tracking are particularly successful at producing high achievement for the strongest students. It is not known whether cooperative learning, another form of organization that produces higher achievement than whole-class instruction, can match ability grouping for the achievement of highly able students. (Camoran, 1989a, p. 22)

If Gamoran was correct in his projection that the conversion to heterogeneous classrooms will result in lower group mean scores, then the current movement toward eliminating ability grouping could bear results very different from those called for in America 2000-that Ameri- can children improve their standing in science and mathematics.

Overall, however, there is very little relevant recent research directed at the issue of ability grouping in secondary science, with the exception of Thomas Hoffer’s (1992) recent work on middle-school students’ achievement in science and mathematics. He compared average achievement of a large number of students in grouped and ungrouped schools from seventh to ninth grades, using data from science and mathematics test items derived from National Assess- ment of Educational Progress (NAEP). He found that for both mathematics and science, overall differences in gains between grouped and ungrouped schools in either subject were negligible.

But when comparing achievement in science of high-, middle-, and low-group students in grouped and ungrouped schools, he found that high-group placement had a weak positive effect for schools practicing ability grouping. But lower-group placement had an ever stronger negative effect. He summarized his findings by saying, “Ability grouping thus appears to benefit advanced students, to harm slower students, and to have a negligible overall effect as the benefits and liabilities cancel each other out” (p. 221).

This study supports the contention that the practice of ability grouping is harmful to those students placed in low groups. Although the effects for students placed in high groups are somewhat less than those estimated by Kulik (1992) (and are less for science than for mathematics), those favoring some type of special grouping for the academically talented will find thcse data support their views as well.

ABILITY GROUPING POLIClESiSCIENCE 123

Summary of Ability Grouping in Science.

The purpose of this article was to examine the practice of ability grouping in secondary science classrooms in light of the science education reform movement. Remarkably little recent research has been done on the topic of ability grouping in secondary science; this despite the fact that improved achievement in science education has been identified as a national goal, that millions of dollars are currently being spent, and that changes in practice in ability grouping are well underway in many schools (Welsh, 1993).

Discussion and Conclusions

The debate among researchers on the grouping issue is a reflection of methodological differences-strict experimentalists (for example, the Kuliks) versus ethnographers (for example, Oakes). Adam Gamoran (1992) suggested combining the two approaches to better understand the situation and to frame the research questions. This approach should be used in evaluating new experimental science education curricula and school restructuring efforts, which may include grouping patterns. Studies having sound experimental designs need to be incorpo- rated into science reform proposals for results to be convincing to the broadest audience. Given the number of schools that are currently restructuring along lines that require the elimination of ability grouping (for instance, the schools participating in Ted Sizer’s Coalition for Essential Schools), finding study populations of heterogeneously grouped students should not be an insurmountable problem.

There is a need for the concerted efforts of professional science organizations to finally, if belatedly, formulate a research agenda for science education reform. (The October 1992 issue of the Journal of Research in Science Teaching is devoted to this topic; see Shymansky & Kyle, 1992.) The agenda might include agreement on operational definitions of independent variables related to grouping patterns. Specifically, criteria for “high,” “average,” and “low” achievers could be established, which may differ from simply relying upon placement in “advanced,” “general ,” and “basic” courses. Moreover, separate categories for “gifted and talented” or ”special education” students are required. It is clear from the research that different schooling practices affect these subgroups in varying ways.

Agreement on appropriate dependent variables to measure achievement outcomes may be hard to get, given the range of strongly held opinions on testing and evaluation (see, for instance, Darling-Hammond & Lieberman, 1992). Appropriate standardized tests or other sorts of achievement measures, NAEP assessments, grades, and alternative performance measures all should be employed, and the results correlated, to maximize credibility. To assess accurately the achievement of students on extremes of the ability curve, tests that have appropriate ceilings and floors could be used, including out-of-level testing.

Jeannie Oakes’ often-cited research presented compelling evidence that classroom environments for both high- and low-ability students are grossly different, and she finds this inequitable and unjust. The present author agrees with her and believes that the attention Oakes and others have brought to the scandalously neglectful conditions that frequently may occur for students placed in “low-ability” classrooms is long overdue (with the qualifier that some school systems and teachers have expended their best efforts to design curricula with generous resources for students in low-ability groups). But further studies such as Oakes’, which compare high versus low groups in the same school, are unlikely to add new information. Rather, new ethnographic and survey research studies should focus on the achievement and attitudes of students in

124 LYNCH

heterogeneously grouped schools as well as on students who are “tracked.” To this end, Oakes has called for research examples (1992) that build confidence in de-tracked schools.

The present author agrees with Oakes that such studies occur, but does so because she is less sanguine about the universal benefits of “de-tracking.” An ethnographic study of a “de- tracked” high school recently completed by this author (Lynch, 1993) suggests that gifted and talented students may not be optimally served in a school where all honors classes have been eliminated, despite an improved academic environment for the majority of students. This is a particularly knotty dilemma, confounded further by the fact that placement in honors science and mathematics classes has a compensatory effect for minority and female students-Gamoran’s analytic interpretation.

The research evidence also suggests that increasing high school graduation requirements in science and mathematics may have a mediating effect on ability grouping (Gamoran, 1987), because differential course-taking seems to contribute significantly to achievement. The NSTA is currently pressing this recommendation (O’Neil, ASCD Curriculum Update, 1992).

An unanswered research question is how the quality of the instruction received within a grouped or nongrouped situation mediates achievement. This is an issue that has largely been ignored (except Gamoran, 1989a). If science is taught by a teacher who stresses memorization of facts, uses traditional lectures and so on, then what are the effects of different grouping strategies on students’ attitudes and achievements in this type of classroom? Conversely, if the teacher relies more on inquiry techniques and stresses science-process skills and understanding, then how much of an issue is the grouping pattern under this circumstance? Are the teacher’s methods and the classroom environment more important than the grouping arrangement?

But there is, perhaps, a larger issue at hand. Grouping strategies may be a small and relatively insignificant component of an academic environment, which may account for the small effect sizes frequently found in the empirical research. In an interesting article, Fred Newmann (1993) argues that a school’s change strategies (such as grouping patterns) are unlikely alone to cause major structural reforms, although the strategic changes may be neces- sary but not sufficient for the creation of the new “learning communities” that are sought. Newmann asserts that “Unless the structure pursues an agenda of particular commitments and competencies . . . there is no way to predict that education will improve” (p. 11).

Similar convictions have been expressed by others (Braddock & McPartland, 1993; Brad- dock & Slavin, 1992; Oakes, 1992). Oakes (1992) points out the necessity for education change in three dimensions-political, technical, and normative. “This rethinking [of the most common and fundamental educational beliefs and values] process is normative in nature because it asks people to challenge their entrenched views of such matters as human capacities, individual and group differences, how schools and classrooms should be organized, and ultimately, whether sorting students to prepare them for a differentiated workforce with unequal economic rewards is what schools should do” (p. 19).

Seen in the larger context of education reform-with the concomitant required commitments of time, intention, site-based management plans, and finances-efforts to “de-track” in the absence of comprehensive restructuring seem simplistic. Although some restructuring efforts (such as the Coalition for Essential Schools) seem to understand that intense efforts for substantive change are measured in years, other reform initiatives seem to take a much more short-sighted approach. In a given school, honors and other special classes may be eliminated virtually overnight, and teachers are “prepared” to meet the needs of all students in the heterogeneous classroom by spending a few days (or hours) in in-service training in cooperative learning and authentic performance assessment. Meanwhile, the old structures and practices-


class sizes, planning and teaming opportunities, access to extra resources for students with exceptional needs-largely remain unchanged.

Dense and confusing as the literature on ability grouping may be, conclusions should not be oversimplified. A “well-meaning” response translated into policy could have devastating effects on schools (Kulik, 1991). “De-tracking” is a simple solution, but there are no guarantees that it alone can solve the problems in achievement associated with race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status (Murphy & Hallinger, 1989.)

The research rather clearly shows that a student’s ability group for a course in school ought not to be fate for life. Schools that stress flexibility-specifically grouping and re-grouping every student each year and for each subject-show less of an achievement difference between tracks than those that are inflexible in track assignment (Gamoran, 1992). Vigilant examination and adjustment of grouping practices may be preferable to the elimination of grouping (see, for instance, DuFour & Schwartz, 1990; Murphy & Hallinger, 1989).

Nor does it seem imperative to adopt an all-or-none position on ability grouping (unless one sees the practice as fundamentally unethical). An asymmetric approach seems possible, perhaps even desirable. For instance, an approach that seems justified by the research literature would be to eliminate “low-ability’’ classes, but continue to offer some advanced ones for students who choose to take up the challenge, although care must be taken to uphold or raise the standards for “general” courses if this were to occur. In some school districts (they tend to be the ones with more disadvantaged youngsters), only the “honors” classes are college preparatory, often leaving the majority of students to languish in classrooms that do not seem to prepare them well for much of anything.

Ability grouping is a practice increasingly questioned as we move into an era characterized by a keen sense of inequity coupled with national concern about the quality of our education. Perhaps the current reform movement in science education provides the opportunity to settle the issue in a fashion that is both rational and humane, effective and just.

I gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Sarah Clemmit, who conducted three interviews for the seminal paper (Lynch & Clemmit, 1992) on this topic. I would also like to thank my research assistant, Elizabeth McNerney, for her tenacity in locating policy documents and for her editorial assistance. The comments of an anonymous reviewer on the dichotomy between the ethical and empirical sides of the argument were especially useful as I revised this article, and perhaps will shape my future inquiry into the topic.

References

Adler, M. (1981). The Paiedia proposal: An educational manifesto. New York: Macmillan. Braddock 11, J.H., & McPartland, J.M. (1993). Education of early adolescents. In L.

Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Review of research in education 1993 (pp. 135- 171). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Braddock 11, J . H . , & Slavin, R.E. (1992, September). Why ability grouping must end: Achieving excellence and equity in American education. Paper presented at the Common Desti- ny Conference, Washington, DC.

Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. (1989). Turning points: Preparing youth for the 21st century. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Leiberman, A. (1992, January 29). The shortcomings of standardized tests. Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. B 1-B2.

126 LYNCH

DuFour, R.P., & Schwartz, W. (1990). Addressing the tracking controversy by promoting equal educational opportunity. NASSP Bulletin, 74, 88-94.

Edsall, T.B. (1993, Aug. 21). Mayor travels middle of the road in Cleveland’s politics of the street. Washington Post, p. A3.

Gamoran, A . (1987). The stratification of high school learning opportunities. Sociology of Education, 60, 135-155.

Gamoran, A. ( 1989a). Instructional organization and educational equity (OERI Grant G008690007). Madison, WI: National Center on Effective Secondary Schools. (ERIC Docu- ment Reproduction Service No. ED 318 125)

Gamoran, A. (1989b, February). Measuring curriculum differentiation. American Journal of Education, 97, 129-143.

Gamoran, A. (1992). Access to excellence: Assignment to honors English classes in the transition from middle to high school. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14, 185- 204.

Gamoran, A., & Berends, M. (1987). The effects of stratification in secondary schools: Synthesis of survey and ethnographic research. Review of Educational Research, 57, 4 15-435.

Gamoran, A, , & Mare, R.D. (1989). Secondary school tracking and educational inequality: Compensation, reinforcement, or neutrality? American Journal of Sociology, 94, 1 146- 1 183.

Goodlad, J.I. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future. New York: McGraw- Hill.

Hoffer, T. (1992). Middle school ability grouping and student achievement in science and mathematics. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14, 205-227.

James, D.E. (1993, March 21). F for conduct: Tampering with classes in Alexandria. Washington Post, p. 8.

Jencks, C., Smith, M., Acland, H., Bane, M.J., Cohen, D., Gintis, H., Heyns, B . , & Michelson, S. (1972). Inequality: A reassessment of the efect of family and schooling in America. New York: Harper Colophon.

Kantrowitz, B., & Wingert, P. (1992, Feb. 17). An “F” in world competition. Newsweek,

Klopfer, L.E., & Champagne, A.B. (1990). Ghosts of crises past. Science Education, 74,

Kulik, C.-L.C., & Kulik, J.A. (1982). Effects of ability grouping on secondary school students: A meta-analysis of the evaluation findings. American Eduratiotzal Research Journal,

Kulik, C.-L.C., & Kulik, J.A. (1984, August). Egects of ability grouping on elementary school pupils: A Meta-analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psycho- logical Association, Toronto. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 255-329)

Kulik, J. ( 1992). Ability grouping guidelines. Storrs: University of Connecticut, National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

Kulik, J.A. (I991 draft). Ability grouping. Storrs: University of Connecticut, National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

Kulik, J.A., & Kulik, C.-L.C. (1984). Effects of accelerated instruction on students. Review of Educational Research, 54, 409-426.

Kulik, J.A., & Kulik, C.-L.C. (1987). Effects of ability grouping on student achievement. Equity and Excellence, 23, 22-30.

Kulik, J.A., and Kulik, C.-L.C. (1991). Ability grouping and gifted students. In N. Colangelo and G.H. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of Gifted Education (pp. 178-196). Boston: Allen & Bacon.

p. 57.

133- 154.

19, 415-428.


Kyle, W.C., Abell, S.K., Roth, W.-M., & Gallagher, J.J. (1992). Toward a mature disci- pline of science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 1015- 10 18.

Loman, E.L. (1983). A revised and intensified science and technology curriculum grades K-12 urgently needed for our future. In The National Science Foundation (Ed.), Educating Americans for the 21st century: Source materials (p. 25). Washington, DC: The National Science Foundation.

Lund, L., & McGuire, E.P. (1983). Business’ role in precollegiate education: A Survey of impacts and attitudes (preliminary report). In The National Science Foundation (Ed.), Educating Americans for the 21 st century: Source materials. Washington, DC: The National Science Foundation.

Lynch, S. (1993, April). The gifted and talented at Walbrook High: A restructured school in Baltimore, Maryland-Alika’s story. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Conference, Atlanta, GA.

Lynch, S . , and Clemmit, S. (1992, March). Science education and the ability grouping controversy. Paper presented at the Eastern Educational Research Conference, Hilton Head, SC.

Lynch, S . , and Mills, C. (1990). The skills reinforcement project: An academic program for high potential minority youth. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13(4), 27-30.

Matthews, C.M. (1989, July 18). Science, engineering, and mathematics precollege and college education. CRS Issue Brief, Congressional Research Service. Washington, DC: The Library of Congress.

Mills, C.J., & Durden, W.G. (1992). Cooperative learning inability grouping: An issue of choice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 1 1- 16.

Murphy, J., & Hallinger, P. (1989). Equity as access to learning: Curricular and instructional treatment differences. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 21, 129- 149.

National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment. (1 992). National science education standards: A sampler. Washington, DC: National Research Council.

National Governors’ Association ( 1 990). Educating America: State strategies for achieving the national educational goals. Washington DC: Author.

National Science Teachers Association, ( 1990). Scope, sequence and coordination of secondary science: A rationale. (Report dated 5 / 10/ 1990). Washington, DC: Author.

Newmann, F.M. (1993). Beyond common sense in educational restructuring: The issues of content and linkage. Educational Researcher, 22, 4- 13, 22.

Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track. New Haven: Yale University Press. Oakes, J. (1986a). Keeping track, Part 1 : The policy and practice of curriculum inequality.

Phi Delta Kappan, 68, 12-17. Oakes, J. (1986b). Keeping track, Part 2: Curriculum inequality and school reform. Phi

Delta Kappan, 68, 148-153. Oakes, J. (1987). Tracking in secondary schools: A contextual perspective. Educational

Psychologist, 22, 129- 153. Oakes, J. (1992). Can tracking research inform practice? Technical, normative and political

considerations. Educational Researcher, 2 I , 12-2 1. Office of Civil Rights, U.S.D.O.E. (1992). Draft of memorandum: Ability grouping investi-

gative procedures guidance. Washington, DC: Author. O’Neil, J. (1992, September). Science Education: Schools push to broaden access, overall

practice. ASCD Curriculum Update (pp. 2-5). Passow, A.H. (1962). The maze of ability grouping. Educational Forum, 26, 281-288. Robinson, A. ( 1 990). Cooperation or exploitation: The argument against cooperative learn-

ing for talented students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14( I), 9-27.

128 LYNCH

Robinson, A. ( 1992). Cooperative learning: Recommendations. Storrs: The University of Connecticut, National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

Rogers, K.B. (1991). The relationship of grouping practices to the education of the gifted and talented learner. Storrs: The University of Connecticut, National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

Rogers, K.B. (1992). Grouping practices: Guidelines. Storrs, CT: The University of Con- necticut, National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

Rutherford, F.J., & Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science for All Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.

Salinger, G.L. (1991). The materials of physics instruction. Physics Today, 44 , 39-45. Shymansky, J.A., & Kyle, W.C., Jr. (Eds.). (1992). Special Issue on Science Curriculum

Slavin, R.E. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: A

Slavin, R.E. (1990a). Achievement effects of ability grouping in secondary schools: A best

Slavin, R.E. (1990b). Ability grouping, cooperative learning and the gifted. Journal for the

Snow, R.E., & Yallow, E. (1982). Education and intelligence. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.),

Swartz, C. (1991). The physicists intervene. Physics Today, 44, 22-28. Trimble, K.D., & Sinclair, R.L. (1987). On the wrong track: Ability grouping and the

U. S . Department of Education. (199 1). America 2000: An education strategy. Washington,

Welsh, P. (1993, March 7). Staying on tracks: Can we teach honors kids and hard cases

Reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 743-912.

best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 57, 293-336.

evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 60, 47 1-499.

Education of the Gijied, 14(1), 3-8.

Handbook of human intelligence (pp. 493-585). London: Cambridge University Press.

threat to equity. Equity and Excellence, 23( 1,2), 15-21.

DC: Author.

together? Washington Post, pp. 1, 4.

Received April 10, 1993 Revised August 26, 1993 Accepted September 8, 1993

ability grouping and science education reform: policy and research base

Documents