gifted and talented ability grouping

8/7/2019 Gifted and Talented Ability Grouping

1/83

Please forward and cross-post

MCEF/MCEA NO LABELS, NO LIMITS! CAMPAIGN:

Gifted and Talented Identification and Ability Grouping

in Montgomery County Public Schools (Maryland)

Frederick Stichnoth ([email protected])March 24, 2011

Table of Contents

One-Pager 2Introduction 3Label and Track 3

Label 3Track 4

No Labels, No Limits! Campaign 6Central tenets 6Organization 7Platitudes 7Ideology without substantiation 8Summary 12

Ability Grouping 13Research 13Overall academic achievement effect of each type of grouping 16

Differential effect on high- and low-performers 19Effect on self-esteem 21Ethnographic studiesJeannie Oakes 22Detracking 31MCPS on ability grouping 39MCCPTA favors grouping 46Maryland State Department of Education favors grouping 49National Association for Gifted Children favors grouping 50

Label Required by Law 51GT identification required by state law 51MCPS position: Label the services, not the child 53

MCPS No Label pilots 54MCPS SIPPI alternative 57MCPS vanishing acknowledgement of the labeling obligation 61Label the services: legally deficient 63MCCPTAs support for the label 64

Reference List 65Appendix A: Board of Education Member Statements 74Appendix B: No Label, No Limits! Campaign Contact Information 79Appendix C: General Contact Information 81


2/83

2

MCEF/MCEA NO LABELS, NO LIMITS! CAMPAIGN:

Gifted and Talented Identification and Ability Grouping

in Montgomery County Public Schools (Maryland)

Frederick Stichnoth ([email protected])March 23, 2011

--a philosophy of no child left behind, but

dont let the gifted students get too far ahead. Tieso

ONE-PAGER

Controlled experimental research into ability grouping shows: (1) overall annualachievement gains in homogeneous groups as compared with heterogeneous classroomsof two to three months in the case of cross-age grouping and within-class grouping, oneyear in the case of special accelerated classes and four months in the case of specialenriched classes; (2) ability grouping does not produce achievement benefits for high-performers and detriments for low-performers; (3) the self-esteem of low-performers isunderminded by heterogeneous grouping, and the self-esteem of high- and low-performers is bolstered by ability grouping.

Classroom observations by Jeannie Oakes have shown that students in low-trackclasses, as compared with students in high-track classes, have lesser access to knowledge

associated with high social status, lower quality instruction, less time-on-task, and lowerself-esteem; however, she is criticized for not comparing these experiences of students inlow-track classes to low-performing students in heterogeneous classrooms. Oakesbelieves that the function, in fact, of schools in society is to reproduce inequitable,hierarchical social arrangements; her goal is to overturn this hierarchy using schoolreform as a tool.

Detracking would result in winners and losers: low-performing students wouldgain and high- and middle-performing students would lose, with a decline in netachievement.

Rockville Centre School District detracked with great achievement successamong low- and high-achievers. It is the leading example of a detracked system, used assuch by MCEF. Rockville Centre only has one middle school, and one high school--withthe demographic profile of MCPS Damascus High School. It is doubtful that RockvilleCentres results could be replicated at the MCPS scale.

MCPS Policy and Regulation support homogeneous grouping, but MCPSsubsequent reports reject it. These reports conflict with positions of parents (voiced byMontgomery County Council of Parent-Teacher Associations), Maryland StateDepartment of Education and National Association for Gifted Children.


3/83

3

State law explicitly requires identification, on a binary basis, of gifted andtalented students, with the plain rationale that students officially identified will be served.MCPS over-identifies a huge 40 percent of students, encompassing such an expanse of

abilities as to preclude using the identification to match identified students with targeteddifferentiated instruction. MCPS no-label pilot program proves that if a label has noconsequence and then the label is removed, no change of consequence will result.MCPS SIPPI program is good in matching students to paltry instructional extensions andin ensuring that minority students recommended for extensions actually receive them. IfSIPPI drops the binary identification, to label the service, not the child, then not only isthe letter of the law violated but the laws expectation of service to identified students isthwarted by the circular notion that students are entitled to expect no more than whateverthey may be offered.

The MCEF/MCEA No Labels campaign is conducted through rhetoric without

evidence, including very dubious causal connections (e.g., that the label causes theachievement gap). Erasing the label gap will have no effect on the achievement gap; toimagine otherwise is a retreat to magical thinking.

INTRODUCTION

The Montgomery County Education Forum and the Montgomery CountyEducation Association are conducting a No Labels, No Limits! political campaign, thegoals of which are to end the labeling of students as gifted and talented, and to endtracking.

The Gazette reports that pressure is mounting on the school system to removethe Gifted and Talented label entirely, and that, given the success of the SIPPI programdiscussed below, the school system may be ready to oblige. Board of Educationmember Laura Berthiaume is reported to believe that momentum seemed to be more onthe side of the No Labels campaign (Ujifusa 2011, A-14).

This paper reviews the campaign rhetoric, a portion of the literature on abilitygrouping, and the law regarding identification of gifted and talented students.

LABEL AND TRACK

Label

MCEA, MCEF and their fellow-travelers have inspired another paroxysm oflabel-mania. The label, a subsidiary though still too necessary facet of a constellationof real issues, has been fantasized by MCEA, MCEF and MCPS into a fetish: thepowerful talisman to an equity utopia.

Its not about the label. But why do MCEFs and MCEAs public comments tothe Board address the label exclusively (while their less public literature condemns abilitygrouping)? Why does the Board of Education imagine that its announced label


4/83

4

reconsideration is the key to MCPS policy on serving the gifted? Why does MCPStweak and re-tweak its identification mechanism, display Potemkin pilots of no-labeling,and position its SIPPI matching tool as a new kind of label that circularly entitles students

to get whatever they in fact get--which at most is reading and math extensions?

The real issues involve service to and performance of gifted and talented students,and African-American, Hispanic and poor (all concentrated geographically in the redzone) students. The keys to improvement (if not utopia) are conceptual clarity, publicdiscussion, execution, data analysis, accountability; a fetish, with attendant yammering,plays no productive role.

State law requires the identification of gifted and talented students. The rationalebehind the law is that real service to these students is necessary but will not be providedunless they are officially identified. Mirroring the rationale, MCPS does not serve

(despite its Policy IOA promise to serve), and so now finds it convenient to dispense withthe label that is a continuing witness to the need for service. Service is the issue, and wewill not discard the witness to the need for service until service is, in fact as well aspromise, part of MCPS culture.

Track

MCEFs fact-unencumbered, ideological tracts focus on tracking. Ourexperience indicates that ability grouping has been rooted out of local schools system-wide (though MCPS professes to have no information on this aspect of its operations).So it is perplexing that MCEF and MCEA raise a public ruckus opposing a disappeared

instructional technique. We are nevertheless grateful for the invitation to demand itsrestoration.

We whole-heartedly agree that service to and performance of African-American,Hispanic and poor students (concentrated geographically in the red zone) are insufficient.We have asked MCPS and MCEF to discuss an equity budget channeling desperatelyneeded resources to the red zone; the importance of gifted and talented education totraditionally-underserved, typically red zone, students; and real equity across the wholedistribution of performance outcomes and life opportunities; but they have beenunresponsive.

Given this refusal, the service deficit and achievement gap are to be fixed byelimination of (already-eliminated) ability grouping. This again is magical thinking.

The primary reason for opposing heterogeneous grouping as the key to improvingunder-achiever performance is that experimental research shows that heterogeneousgrouping does not improve under-achiever performance. Classroom observationalresearch has shown that under-achievers have a poor experience in an ability-groupedsystem, but has neglected to compare that experience to their experience in theheterogeneous classroom. (Classroom observation is suggestive but, unlike experimentalresearch, cannot establish that grouping causes the conditions observed.) One system


5/83

5

touted by MCEF, Rockville Centre School District, has demonstrated superb results withheterogeneous grouping. As contrasted with MCPS, that system has one high school,spends $20,000 per pupil, and is comprised primarily of upper middle class families, with

a FARMS rate of 13 percent. Rockville Centres profile approximates that of MCPSDamascus High School. (Detrack Damascus.)

Experimental research has demonstrated fairly firmly that ability grouping doesnot undermine under-achiever self-esteem; it bolsters it.

Detracking has been shown by experimental research to harm higher performingstudents achievement and self-esteem, particularly higher performing minority studentsachievement and self-esteem.

But even if detracking were confirmed by experimental research and by a track

record of successes in comparable districts, the crucial pre-requisites to detracking,identified as such by detrackers, are far from met by MCPS.

1. High level curriculum. Detrackers insist that a high-standard curriculum isessential; MCPS has fixed its curriculum on a mid-level, college-without-remediation,standard, inimical to the whole idea of detracking.

2. Ability to differentiate. Detrackers insist that administrators, parents andteachers be absolutely confident that teachers can differentiate; in MCPS it is universallyacknowledged, and proven by MCPS evaluation, that teachers cannot adequatelydifferentiate.

3. Support for struggling students. Detrackers insist that the detrackedsystem offer pervasive support for struggling students; no systematic support, or courseof support in fact, is apparent in MCPS.

4. Parent confidence in the system. Detrackers insist on the importance ofparent confidence, borne in part by system responsiveness to parent concerns andopenness to all voices in the debate. MCPS has forsaken gifted and talented parentconfidence by its utterly disingenuous discussion of gifted and talented programming, byits evasion of or retaliation against parents in-school concerns regarding particularservices to particular students, by shutting gifted and talented parents out of committee

participation and by publicly and officially ridiculing their desire to participate. MCPShas ignored the long and consistent support for ability grouping by Montgomery CountyCouncil of Parent-Teacher Associations, as well as by the Maryland State Board ofEducation and the National Association for Gifted Children.

5. Data on the full spectrum of performance. Detrackers insist on publiclyavailable data, and MCPS refuses to institute a system of data collection, analysis andreporting that reveals the full distribution of performance (disaggregated demographicallyand by the wealthy green zone and the poor red zone). Without this data, MCPS cannotevaluate its service to highly-able students.


6/83

6

System-wide equity between schools is not a pre-requisite identified bydetrackers, perhaps because the detracking experiment has been confined to simplifiedsingle-school, therefore within-school, equity. If instructional and curricular practices

could be kept high, by being anchored to a high external standard, then instruction andcurricula would be identical system-wide, such that between-school demographic, socio-economic and achievement differences would not impede the equity sought bydetrackers. In reality, instruction is relative to in-class, in-school, student peer groupcapacity. No detracking emphasis on composing single class, single school,heterogeneous groups can accomplish cross-system, multi-school, between-school,heterogeneity. Detracking in the large district necessarily entails, as MCPS has proven,two systems, separate and unequal.

We desire to make real, practical improvement in the education of all students:high- and low-performers, including African-American, Hispanic, and poor students

positioned all along the ability distribution. Real improvement entails high levelcurricula, systemic and systematic support for struggling students, parent confidenceborne of system responsiveness and inclusion, disaggregated data on the full spectrum ofperformance, the same continuum of opportunities to learn in all schools comprising thesystem, and students opportunity to learn among their intellectual peers.

Community differences with regard to these real issues are enflamed by magicalthinking rationalized through ideological rhetoric, and press and Board member reportsthat policy-makers succumb to it. The Board, MCPS, MCEF and MCEA should joinparents with a stake in these issues in pursuing conceptual and factual clarity, publicdiscussion, execution, data analysis and accountability.

NO LABELS, NO LIMITS! CAMPAIGN

Central tenets

The campaign has both a real and a symbolic focus on letters sent by MCPS toparents of each Grade 2 student, following completion of testing and other evaluativeprocedures, stating, among other things, that the student either has or has not beenidentified as gifted and talented. MCEFs campaign flyer states A critical first step tocreating awareness and recommending new strategies is to direct the school system toSTOP sending out letters to parents indicating that some children are gifted and talented

and that others are NOT (Montgomery County Education Forum n.d.a). The GTidentification made by the letter is pejoratively, but generally, referred to as the label.

The label is said to initiate a practice, lasting through each students school career,of sorting students by ability. This marks the beginning of separate tracks specialeducation and on grade level versus honors, AP, IB that further segregate ourchildren by middle and high school and deny our children the education they need.(Montgomery County Education Forum n.d.b). The campaign notes the disparity inidentification rates among racial, ethnic and socio-economic groups, and thus contendsthat the tracking which is said to result from the label is a cause of the achievement gap.


7/83

7

Organization

MCEF stated that it is working with the following groups in the campaign:

Identity, GapBusters, MCPS Study Circles, Impact Silver Spring, MCEA, MCAASP,SEIU 500, NAACP, NAACP Parents Council, Southern Christian Leadership Congressand groups of MCPS students. MCEFs work is funded through a grant from the Sanfordand Doris Slavin Foundation (Montgomery County Education Forum 2010a, 2), which isfunded and operated by Montgomery County philanthropists. Blair High SchoolsStudents for Global Responsibility, sponsored by George Vlasits (Blair Honors and APAmerican History teacher, MCEF core team member and MCEA committee chair), isworking with the countywide organization Montgomery County Education Forum(MCEF) to remove the GT label in elementary schools across the county (Xu 2011, 1).The Blair Silver Chips report on this work links to MCEFs website.

MCEAs campaign is run by its Human and Civil Rights Committee (GeorgeVlasits, chair; Ed Hsu, Nafissatou Rouzand, Jenny Higgins). MCEAs RepresentativeAssembly adopted a resolution in October, 2010 to endorse the campaign. MCEA asks itsteacher-member representatives in the schools to encourage ongoing discussion in theschools about the No Labels campaign (Montgomery County Education Associationn.d.a), to work with the PTSAs by either arranging a meeting or posting a presentation,and to distribute flyers at the school worksite. MCEA contracted with Ana Benfield towork on the campaign for three months (Montgomery County Education Association2010a).

See Appendix B: No Labels, No Limits Campaign Contact Information.

Platitudes

Some of the campaigns assertions have a mom and apple pie appeal, but only apseudo-relationship to labeling and detracking:

[A]ll children have unique gifts and talents.(Montgomery County EducationAssociation n.d.b). Do we really think that 80% of African American and Latinochildren are without gifts or talents? (Montgomery County Education Forum, n.d.b).

Students should have equitable education (Montgomery County Education

Association n.d.b).

All students deserve [sic] high quality of instruction, a rigorous curriculum(Montgomery County Education Association n.d.b) and a high quality curriculum(Montgomery County Education Forum n.d.a). (MCPS would assert that its curricula arehigh quality and rigorous.)

High quality curriculum with appropriate rigor and support benefits all studentsand leads to achieving meaningful goals and outcomes (Montgomery County EducationForum n.d.a).


8/83

8

[T]here are significant social costs for failing to educate all students to theirpotential (Montgomery County Education Forum 2002, 18).

Ideology without substantiation

Identification leads to tracking. Students who are not considered gifted andtalented, are often tracked to remedial or on-grade level course work from second gradeall the way to high school (Montgomery County Education Forum n.d.a).MCEF/MCEA activist Vlasits said that global screening means that students are sortedinto the GT track or the non-GT track (Xu 2011).

MCPS identifies approximately 40 percent of Grade 2 students as gifted andtalented (Montgomery County Public Schools 2009g, 1). The top performing studentswho are not identified are at the class median along the ability spectrum. The needs of

this median group should define on-grade level course work. The matching of thesestudents to this work is a goal of educational programming. The work in MCPS leads tocollege-readiness.

Identification is not the fateful first step in tracking. First, it is impossible toidentify any programmatic access gained as a result of identification, and neither MCEAnor MCEF attempts to do so. In fact, except for its magnet programs, MCPS offers noprogramming that is not on-grade. Second, there is no publicly available longitudinalanalysis that correlates Grade 2 identification to subsequent program access (e.g., Math 6in Grade 5) or benchmark attainment (e.g., SAT 1650 or AP 3 or higher), and neitherMCEA nor MCEF attempts to provide one. To the contrary, MCPS states that the label

or lack of a label is not the determining factor for whether a child receives advanced-levelinstruction. Math 6 enrollment verifies that students who were identified, as well asstudents who were not identified GT, are completing advanced-level mathematics(Montgomery County Public Schools 2009f, 4). Third, while tracking is variouslydefined, MCPS offers open access to whatever programming may be available (exceptmagnets) and promotes all students toward rigorous programming. MCCPTA PresidentKristin Tribles March 21, 2011 letter to the Board, responding to the No Labels, NoLimits! campaign, states We disagree that the bestowing of the GT label affords anygenuine enrichment opportunities to GT identified students that cannot be accessed byother students (Montgomery County Council of Parent-Teacher Associations 2011, 3).

Identification limits educational opportunities. Students who have not beenidentified gifted have limited choices and are often prevented from participating inmagnet classes and taking advance [sic] courses needed to get into colleges (MontgomeryCounty Education Association, n.d.b). The [non-GT] kids get very littleopportunities, Vlasits said. They would like to try more challenging material but thosethings wont fly (Xu 2011). This means that labeling students considered NOT giftedand talented limits their access to the additional instruction and advanced curriculumneeded to succeed (Montgomery County Education Forum n.d.a). The worstinstructional effects of this practice [tracking] include: remedial versus enriched


9/83

9

instruction; worksheets versus hands-on labs; rote memorization versus inquiry-basedlearning (Montgomery County Education Forum n.d.b).

These assertions largely repeat those of the previous paragraphs. But in addition,MCEA asserts that non-identified students are often prevented from accessing magnetprograms. First, magnet access is determined by special, voluntary testing at the Grade3-4, 5-6 and 8-9 articulation points; Grade 2 identification is not a factor in magnetadmission. Perhaps, though, MCEAs statement that non-identified students are oftenprevented means that a low proportion of students who are not identified in factaccessmagnet programs. Again, this is an assertion without evidence, and MCPS does notmake publicly available data which pertains to this conclusion. And again, it should notbe noteworthy that few students evaluated to be at the middle of their classes in Grade 2would access magnet programs restricted to the top-performing three percent of theirclasses at these subsequent articulation points. Thus, while there may be a correlation

between non-identification and non-access, it is necessarily little different from therelationship between identification and non-access: few access the magnets. Finally,there is no reason to believe that there is a causal connection between identification andaccess. MCCPTA President Kristin Tribles March 21, 2011 letter to the Board,responding to the No Labels, No Limits! campaign, states We disagree that studentswho are not identified as gifted fail to access magnet programs because of the existenceof the gifted label; this confuses correlation with causation (Montgomery CountyCouncil of Parent-Teacher Associations 2011).

The position of student member of the MCPS Board of Education Alan Xie wassummarized: As a result of tracking children, Xie felt that students become segregated.

[The GT kids] end up going to better schools because they were conditioned to, he said.Its a self-fulfilling prophecy (Xu 2011). This Board member apparently asserts thatidentified students access more selective colleges because identification or subsequentaccess to more rigorous programming conditions them. As discussed previously,identification does not lead in any way to more rigorous programming. The notion thatthe 40 percent of students identified as gifted, reaching to the midway point of the abilityspectrum, access more selective colleges is impossible to comprehend and is unsupportedby evidence.

Identification lowers expectations. MCEA committee chair Vlasits testifiedbefore the Board of Education that labels lower expectations that are critical to learning

(Montgomery County Education Association 2010b). [L]abeling of students frequentlyresults in lower expectations for those labeled not GT.(Montgomery CountyEducation Association n.d.a). Many teachers have high expectations for childrenidentified as gifted and talented. So do their parents. As do the children,themselves.Children MCPS identifies, in effect, as not gifted and talented get themessage that school is not a place where they can shine (Montgomery County EquityForum, n.d.b).

The weight of mixed evidence regarding the causal correlation of ability groupingand self-esteem, presented below, indicates that self-esteem is not undermined by ability


10/83

10

grouping. There is no evidence correlating the letter of identification and self-esteem. Itis not impossible that information that a student is at or below the median of the classaffects expectations of that student, his/her parents and teachers. However, even if a

causal connection to lower expectations is assumed to exist, it seems likely that otherfactors (e.g., poor grades and test scores, and underperformance among peers in theheterogeneous classroom) have a more immediate and stronger causal correlation todiminished expectations.

Identification is a cause of the achievement gap. MCEA committee chair Vlasitstestified that labels contribute to the achievement gap (Montgomery County EducationAssociation 2010b). MCEF asserts: Tracking in MCPS begins with gifted and talented(GT) program policies and practices in elementary schools that create the foundation foran achievement gap for students of color and lower socio-economic status. MCPSability grouping policies and practices are largely responsible for educational disparities

because they institutionalize low expectations for children of color. [T]here is a directconnection between the practice of tracking beginning in early grades and the resultingachievement gap (Montgomery County Education Forum 2002, 10, 3, 6). Labeling cancontribute to the achievement gap.(Montgomery County Education Associationn.d.a). So the achievement gap may increase because of MCPS policies(Montgomery County Education Forum n.d.b).

Racial disparity exists not only in identification, but also in performanceoutcomes along all of MCPS data points. Neither MCEA nor MCEF presents datacorrelating the identified 40 percent of students and the non-identified 60 percent ofstudents to post-identification performance against benchmarks. No such experimental

data exists in MCPS. (The No Labels campaigners apparently expect that elimination ofthe label in the two no-label pilot schools will have a causal connection to thesubsequent reduction of the achievement gap. However, the former Director of MCPSDivision of Accelerated and Enriched Instruction stated that it is not possible to attributeperformance results to the elimination of the GT identification.)

It seems much more likely that other factors have a much more direct causaleffect on the achievement gap than does receipt of the identification letter. Literatureadvocating the amelioration of African-American underperformance provides negativeevidence that neither identification nor ability grouping (nor even tracking)significantly affects underperformance and the achievement gap. The 2007 Task Force

on the Education of Marylands African American Males Report, prepared for theMaryland State Department of Education, makes no recommendation regarding ormention of ability grouping, despite many in-school recommendations (place the mosteffective teachers in the highest need classrooms, recruit African-American men intoteaching, cultural competency training, increase African-American PSAT participation inGrade 10, etc.) (Maryland State Department of Education 2007a). The 2008 School-based, Out-of School Time, and Collaborative Strategies to Close the Academic

Achievement Gap between African American and White Students: A Review of the

Literature, prepared for MCPS, makes no recommendation regarding and only onemention of ability grouping among its many in-school recommendations (mission driven,


11/83

11

high expectations for all, effective school leadership, focused professional development,high-quality teachers, culturally responsive pedagogy/curricula, academically demandingcurriculum, strong relationships, data-driven decision making, small learning

environments, individualized supports, extended learning time) (Shattuck, Golan andShattuck 2008). This report, in a brief overview of some of the key MCPS programsand initiatives that employ strategies identified in the literature as crucial to closing theachievement gap (55) presents favorably a brief description of MCPS Rock ViewElementary Schools Closing the Gap Initiative. The Rock View Initiative is focusedon performance-based grouping in which all students are placed in temporary, flexiblegroups based on reading and math ability for half of the instructional day.Groups areadjusted regularly so that when they are ready, students move up to more challenginggroups; students are never placed in a lower level as a result of adjustment (Shattuck,Golan and Shattuck 2008, 58). The 2010 report A Call for Change: The Social andEducational Factors Contributing to the Outcomes of Black Males in Urban Schools, of

The Council of Great City Schools, makes no recommendation regarding or mention ofability grouping, despite its in-school recommendations (expand the number of Blackmale counselors, ensure that Black male students are taking the requisite courses at theappropriate level of rigor, encourage school district leaders to better target theirinstructional programming, etc.) (The Council of Great City Schools 2010, 101).

Identification is not equitable. MCEA committee chair Vlasits pronounces thelabel inconsistent with the commitment to equity (Montgomery County EducationAssociation 2010b).

MCPS, for several successive years, has adjusted its identification procedure to

ensure identification that is equitable among demographic groups.

Mr. Vlasits does not define equity, so his assertion has more emotional appealthan meaning. Equity might mean serving each student at the level of his or her needsand abilities; if so, and if identification contributed to this match, then this identificationwould serve equity.

MCPS defines equity in conjunction with excellence:

Equity in our schools is defined as high expectations and access to meaningfuland relevant learning for all students so that outcomes are not predictable by race,

ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, language proficiency, or disability.Excellence is achieved through high standards that ensure that all students grow toreach their highest levels year after year and are college or career ready as highschool graduates (Montgomery County Public Schools 2010c, iii).

Equitable outcomes are measured against the two excellence criteria. As discussedpreviously, neither MCEF nor MCEA provides any reason to believe that percentages ofAfrican-American, Hispanic and/or FARMS students attaining MCPS mid-level SevenKeys college-readiness benchmarks would be higher if students did not receive theidentification letter. If identification were effective (i.e., it lead to anything, as State law


12/83

12

intends), then it presumably would match current readiness levels to programming,helping each student reached his or her highest level.

High ability students are not damaged by heterogeneous grouping. MCEF quotesAnne Wheelock: Of the hundreds of research studies conducted on heterogeneousgroups, the vast majority concludes that high achieving students do not lose ground indiverse-ability classes. In almost every case, classroom environment is found to be farmore important than student enrollment (Montgomery County Education Forum 2002,17). Research, discussed below, indicates that heterogeneous grouping would reduceboth high-ability student achievement and aggregate achievement.

Ability grouping is anti-egalitarian and undemocratic. Montgomery CountyEducation Forum pronounces We live in democracy. Therefore, people shouldmingle. Higher-track students classroom and learning experience is deficient and

devoid of the rich contributions that every child has to offer. The high-track classroomperpetuates race and class stereotypes, and the false conceptions that high-performingstudents are better than whole groups of their peers and that segregation and race andclass biases are not wrong (Montgomery County Education Forum 2002, 18).

MCEFs statements are deficient and devoid of evidence. In any case, theyhave only limited applicability today, because such ability grouping is largely restrictedto the magnet programs. This assumed segregation and elitism appear to be more directlycaused by residential segregation, Balkanized County development (a vicious cyclecausally related to unequal schools), and MCPS fairly rigid school assignment andtransfer policies.

MCEF believes that heterogeneous grouping is necessary if parents and studentsare to interact as a community as opposed to a contest of individuals. MCEF calls forabandonment of the paradigm that quality education is a scarce commodity and we mustfight so that our children and not others children receive it (Montgomery CountyEducation Forum 2002, 19). I perceive neither the contest nor exclusion. I wanted mychildren to receive an excellent academic education, but see no need for contest orexclusion. To the contrary, I believe that my children are supported by peers who alsowant and receive an excellent academic education.

Certainly some parents promote distinguished performance in the competition for

access to the most selective colleges. I do not believe it is the role of the school system tocorrect this social, class-carried, impulsion.

Summary

The MCEF/MCEA campaign is conducted with snippets aimed at organizing abandwagon while thwarting analysis. Some assertions are patently false, such as the ideathat a lack of identification prevents magnet access. Nearly every statement isunsupported by evidence. Many statements mistake correlation for causation, such asreasoning from the correlation of identification and the achievement gap to the assertion


13/83

13

that identification causes the achievement gap. Use of terms such as equity is intendedto provoke action with neither definition nor analysis of what equity means in the contextof a diverse and Balkanized school system. The campaign is ideological, not pragmatic.

Such disingenuous statements make discussion, compromise and resolution nearlyimpossible and cloud policy-making.

ABILITY GROUPING

Research

Introduction. Research into ability grouping addresses three primary questions:How does ability grouping affect aggregate performance? How does ability groupingdifferentially affect students of low ability, middle ability and high ability? How doesability grouping affect students self-esteem?

There are two primary research approaches: experimental and ethnographic.Experimental research compares performance outcomes between homogeneous abilitygroups and heterogeneous groups, and among ability groups; students are assigned to oneor the other type of group either by random assignment or by assignment of pairsmatched by similar IQ or prior achievement measures or some measure of ability. Ameta-analysis is a statistical combination of many prior existing experimental studies.Ethnographic research is based on classroom observation and educated judgment of themeaning and effect of classroom interactions: the subjective meanings of the events andpatterns of life in schools (Gamoran and Berends 1987, 6).

Slavin observed in 1990 that Arguments for and against ability grouping havebeen essentially similar for 70 years (Slavin 1990, 472). In favor of ability grouping, itis typically argued that ability grouping allow[s] teachers to adapt instruction to theneeds of a diverse student body, with an opportunity to provide more difficult material tohigh achievers and more support to low achievers. For high achievers, the challenge andstimulation of other high achievers are believed to be beneficial [citation omitted] (Slavin1993, 536-537). The argument focuses on instructional effectiveness.

Arguments opposed to ability grouping indicate its perceived damage to lowachievers, though slower pace, lower quality instruction, less experienced or ableteachers, teachers who do not want to teach low track students, low expectations, and few

positive behavioral models. Low-track students are seen to be prone to delinquency,absenteeism, dropout, and social problems; they are less likely to attend college. Abilitygrouping is seen to perpetuate social class and racial inequities, through development ofelite and underclass groups. It is contrary to egalitarian, democratic ideals. Theargument focuses on equity and democratic values (Slavin 1990, 474).

Research tangents follow larger cultural and educational outlooks of the times:the mental testing movement of 1920s and 30s, progressive education of 1930s and 40s,educational excellence of 1950s, educational equity of 1960s (Kulik 1992, 4). Nationallyand locally, equity currently is ascendant.


14/83

14

Mosteller, Light and Sachs state that The main finding is that the appropriate,large-scale, multi-site research studies on skill grouping have not yet been carried out,even though the issues have been debated as major public concerns within education for

most of this century (Mosteller, Light and Sachs 1996, 814).

Preliminary: curricular differentiation. Meta-analyses from the 1990s ofRobert Slavin and James Kulik continue to dominate the experimental research. Thedifference in their research interests is pertinent to the controversy regarding MCPSgifted and talented program. Slavin excludes studies that did not standardize curricula;he focuses only on the effect of learning in homogeneous groups, without differentiatedcurricula and instruction. His elementary years study excludes studies of special classesfor the gifted and for low achievers. These classes involve many other changes incurriculum, class size, resources, and goals that make them fundamentally different fromcomprehensive ability grouping plans. His research and article focus on the

achievement effects of grouping practices per se(Slavin 1987, 297). Slavins middlegrades study excludes special programs for the gifted or other high achievers as well asstudies of special education, remedial programs, or other special programs for lowachievers (Slavin 1993, 538).

Kulik notes Slavins rationale, but makes this observation in distinguishing thedifferent purpose of his investigation:

Many reviewers have concluded that grouping works only when a curriculum isadapted to the ability level of those who are grouped. In enriched and acceleratedclasses, the adjustment of curriculum to student aptitude is especially clear. From

studies of such classes, therefore, we can begin to estimate the effects thatgrouping has when it is done for the purpose of providing instruction adapted tostudent ability level (Kulik 1992, 19).

Slavin isolates a discrete instructional technique grouping for study; Kulikcombines grouping with curricular matching (and thus with acceleration and enrichment).The efficacy of grouping in itself is at issue between tracking and detracking proponents.However, ability grouping is complemented by curricular matching. Even the nominallyheterogeneous classroom employs differentiation among students of instructionaltechniques and other processes and products (which are difficult to distinguish fromcurriculum). The ultimate practical issue seems to be whether students are best served by

ability grouping with curricular adjustments or no grouping with lesser instructionaladjustments. To resolve this issue, grouping combined with adjustments must beresearched.

Types of grouping. Experimental research distinguishes the following types ofgrouping:

1. XYZ grouping (Kulik) or ability-grouped class assignment (Slavin): at agiven grade level, students are grouped by some measure of ability in separate classroomsand the same curricula is offered to all groups.


15/83

15

2. Joplin plan or cross-grade grouping: students are regrouped by abilityacross grades, usually in reading, with homogeneous class instruction in each separateclass, and with instructional material differentiated among the classes.

3. Within-class grouping: within a single classroom, students are grouped byability for certain subjects and instruction to each group is differentiated by ability level.

4. Between-class grouping (addressed by Kulik but not Slavin, for the reasongiven above): students are homogeneously grouped in separate classrooms, withcurricula either accelerated or enriched for higher ability students.

Cooperative learning is a family of similar instructional techniques (severalwith individual experts as their creators and main proponents, including Slavin, SpencerKagan, and Roger and David Johnson) based on in-class heterogeneous grouping that

currently is advocated nationally (and as further discussed below recommended byMCPS at least for diverse classrooms, and by MCEF, Oakes, and Burris and Welner).Groups are comprised of between four and eight students of different ability levels,mixed as to gender, ethnic and socio-economic background. Cooperative learning is atechnique that structures student-student interaction patterns, through positive goalinterdependence with individual accountability. Interdependence entails that studentssink or swim together: they have a common goal on which the group will be rewardedfor their efforts. At the same time, each individual member is responsible to make asignificant contribution to the group (Johnson and Johnson 1988).

Tracking is a charged term with various definitions. MCEA states Grouping

students by labels or in certain classes with selective instruction is tracking (MontgomeryCounty Education Association n.d.b). Similarly, for Loveless, tracking is implementedon a subject-by-subject basis, and refers to grouping students into separate classes basedon achievement (Loveless 2009, 9). By contrast, MCEF states:

Tracking is defined as the rigid and static assignment of students to classes,programs, or schools on the basis of ability, achievement, or teacher/counselorudgment for a long period of time with no options, and with whole group

instruction as the predominant mode of instruction. In laymans terms, its thesorting and labeling of students into groups into which they are locked throughouttheir schools careers [citing to MCPS report].Not all grouping practices are

tracking. Ability grouping that is short-term, flexible, and frequently evaluatedand where children can be regrouped according to evaluations can be usedeffectively to meet specific student learning goals (Montgomery CountyEducation Forum 2002, 1, 4).

However, with some inconsistency, MCEF also states Tracking is the homogeneousgrouping of students with other students who are like them in academic performance;detracking is the oppositecreating classrooms which are heterogeneous or ofmixed-achievement levels (Montgomery County Education Forum 2002, 16).


16/83

16

I view tracking as rigid and static assignment on the basis of ability orachievement for a long period of time with no options. Ability grouping which is notrigid over a long period of time is not tracking. However, I acknowledge that an ability

group might persist over a long period not by rigid rule, but by a de facto divergence ofabilities between groups caused to a significant degree by the difference between thegroups in the content and quality of instruction.

Overall academic achievement effect of each type of grouping

A summary of results comparing achievement between the various types ofhomogeneous grouping and heterogeneous grouping is presented in the table below.(Note that Slavins conclusions differ depending on his focus on elementary or middleschool.)

Table 1: Comparison of Research as to Overall Effect

Slavinelementaryschool

Slavinsecondary/middleschool

Kulik

XYZ/ability-grouped classassignment

0 0 0.03 standard deviations-negligible.

Joplin plan/cross-grade grouping

0.45 standarddeviations

Mixed results 0.3 standard deviations-small/moderate. 2 to 3months advantage

Within-classgrouping

0.32 standarddeviations

0 0.25 standard deviations; 2to 3 months advantage

Specialaccelerated classes

Not addressed Not addressed 0.85 standard deviations:large increase. 1 yearadvantage

Special enrichedclasses

Not addressed Not addressed 0.40 standard deviations. 4months advantage

In general, Slavin and Kulik agree that XYZ/ability-grouped class assignment (withoutcurricular differentiation) produces no achievement advantage relative to heterogeneousgrouping, and that both elementary school Joplin plan/cross-grade grouping andelementary school within-class grouping produces advantages in elementary school.They disagree regarding middle school Joplin plan and middle school within-classgrouping.

XYZ/ability-grouped class assignment. Slavin determined that assigning[elementary school] students to self-contained classes according to general achievementor ability does not enhance student achievement in the elementary school(Slavin 1987328); and the effects of ability grouping on [middle grade] student achievement areessentially zero (Slavin 1993, 539). Kulik summarized: the average effect of XYZgrouping is negligible. It is equivalent to a gain on a grade-equivalent scale of about one-


17/83

17

third of a month or a gain in percentile rank from the 50 th to the 51st percentile (Kulik1992, 23). Kulik and Slavin agree.

Burris, Welner and Bezoza agree that the research is settle that XYZ groupingdoes not affect achievement (Burris, Welner and Bezoza 2009, 5).

Joplin Plan/cross-grade grouping. Slavin stated: There is good evidence thatregrouping students for reading across [elementary school] grade lines [in the JoplinPlan] increases reading achievement (Slavin 1987, 328). Kulik found: Unlike XYZgrouping, cross-grade grouping clearly works. Cross-grade grouping produces small tomoderate positive effects on student achievement scores in most studies, and its averageeffect is to raise achievement test-scores by approximately 0.30 standard deviations.This constitutes a grade-equivalent gain of three months or a rise in percentile scoresfrom 50 to 62 (Kulik 1992, 30). For Mosteller, Light and Sachs, the Joplin results are

encouraging, yet our evidence is severely limited (Mosteller, Light and Sachs 1996,808).

Kulik speculates as to why Joplin plan results differ from XYZ grouping. Afterobserving that Joplin plan placement is based on a specific skill, he says that A moreimportant factor may be the large amount of curricular adaptation in cross-gradeprograms.The close fit between curriculum and aptitude may be the key factor thatmakes cross-grade grouping so successful (Kulik 1992, 31).

Regrouping. Slavin (but not Kulik) considered elementary school regrouping andfound the data inconclusive. There is some evidence that such plans [regrouping by

ability within grade levels but across classrooms for reading and/or mathematics] can beinstructionally effective if the level and pace of instruction is adapted to the achievementlevel of the regrouped class and if students are not regrouped for more than one or twodifferent subjects (Slavin 1987, 328).

Argys, Rees and Brewer compared ability grouping in mathematics Grades 8 and10. In this arrangement, curriculum also varies somewhat among classes. Theydetermine:

Placement in a below average math class is associated with a decrease inachievement of approximately 5 percentage points. Placement in an above

average math class is associated with an achievement increase of roughly thesame magnitude, and placement in an average class is associated with an increaseof somewhat more than 2 percentage points (Argys, Rees Brewer 1996, 637).

Within-class ability grouping. Slavin finds a 0.32 standard deviation effect sizefor elementary school students and states that research supports the use [in elementaryschool] of within-class groupingespecially if the number of groups is kept small(Slavin 1987, 317, 328). Kulik agrees: within-class programs have a good record ofeffectiveness in the evaluation literaturerais[ing] student achievement on criterion testsby about 0.2 to 0.3 standard deviations (Kulik 1992, 33). Within-class grouping


18/83

18

succeeds for the same reason as Joplin plan grouping: adaptation of curriculum tostudent level (Kulik 1992, 34).

Special accelerated classes. Kulik, but not Slavin for the reason mentionedabove, considers special accelerated classes and special enriched classes. In acceleratedclasses, the program is modified so that students can complete it earlier or in less timethan usual. Kulik states that The average effect size in these studies was 0.87; themedian effect was 0.84 (37).

It is unusual for groups that are equivalent in general intelligence and age to differby almost one grade level in performance on achievement tests. Nonetheless, thatis the size of the difference between scores of accelerates and nonaccelerates inthe average study. In a review of approximately 100 different meta-analysis [sic]of findings of educational research, Chen-Lin Kulik and I were not able to find

any educational treatment that consistently yielded a higher effect size than thisone (Kulik 1992, 38).

Without having studied such programs, Slavin observed However, it is likely thatcharacteristics of special accelerated programs for the gifted account for the effects ofgifted programs, not the fact of separate grouping per se (Slavin 1987, 307). Oakesagrees: What seems to make a difference for high-achievers, then, is not the groupingitself, but the special resources, opportunities, and support that usually exist in high-levelclasses (Oakes 2005, 238).

Special enriched classes. Kulik studied programs in which students spend about

half time on the prescribed curriculum and half time pursuing enriching activities (Kulik1992, 39). He concluded, These classes contribute to the intellectual progress of higheraptitude students. Gifted and talented students gain more academically from such classesthan they do in regular mixed-ability classes (Kulik 1992, 41). Furthermore,approximately 66% of the talented students in the special classes outperform the typicaltalented student in a mixed-ability class (Kulik 1992, 41). The average gain on a grade-equivalent scale is 4 months (Kulik 1992, 43).

Cooperative learning. Slavin is a proponent of cooperative learning. He states:Research on cooperative learning in the middle grades consistently shows positiveeffects of these methods if they incorporate two major elements: group goals and

individual accountability. (Slavin 1993, 546).

Johnson and Johnson report data indicating that, in a cooperative learning setting,students learn more than in competitive or individualistic interaction, feel morepositive about school and each other, and are more effective interpersonally.

Johnson and Johnson state that:

For a variety of reasons, heterogeneous groups tend to be more powerful thanextreme homogeneity. A lot of the power for learning in cooperative groups


19/83

19

come from the need for discussion, explanation, justification, and sharedresolution on the material being learned. Quick consensus without discussiondoes not enhance learning as effectively as having different perspectives

discussed, arguing different alternatives, explaining to member who need help andthoroughly delving into the material (Johnson and Johnson 1988).

Peer effect. A separate body of research investigates the influence on theperformance of the individual student exerted by the characteristics of other students inthe classroom. Hoxby and Weingarth find classroom achievement influenced by peereffect. Their data is explained by the Boutique and Focus model along with a generalmonotonicity property that says that all else equal, a higher achieving peer is better than alower achieving one (Hoxby and Weingarth 2005, 27; italics in original).

The Boutique model of peer effects suggests that a student will have higher

achievement whenever she is surrounded by peer [sic] with similar characteristics.This is essentially a model in which students do best when the environment ismade to cater to their type. For instance, in schools, the Boutique model mightmean that teachers organize lessons and materials around the learning style of astudent if there is a critical mass of his type.

The Focus model of peer effects is closely related to the Boutique model butsuggests that peer homogeneity is good for a students learning, even if thestudent himself is not part of the group of homogeneous students. In this model,diversity is inherently disabling, perhaps because tasks cannot be well targeted toall students needs (6-7).

These models indicate that ability grouping, which comprises a classroom of studentswith similar characteristics, benefits performance of students in those classrooms.

Hoxby and Weingarth find:

[R]ace, ethnicity, and income do not matter much once we have accounted for theeffects of peers achievement.The vast majority of the apparent impact of aconcentration of racial minorities, ethnic minorities, or poor students is really theeffect of their achievement. Put another way, if we see two schools with the samedistribution of achievement (not merely the same mean), we should expect their

students achievement to evolve similarly in the future, even if the schools havequite different racial, ethnic, and income compositions (29-30).

Differential effect on high- and low-performers

A comparative summary of results is presented in the table below.


20/83

20

Table 2: Comparison of Research as to Group Differential Effect

Slavinelementaryschool

Slavin-middlegrade/secondary school

Kulik

XYZ/ability-grouped classassignment

No differencebetween high andlow performers

No difference betweenhigh and low peformers

Benefits highperformers 0.10; noeffect on mid 0.02 andlow 0.01 performers

Joplin plan/cross-grade grouping

No benefit of onegroup at theexpense of other

Negligible: 0.09 high, -0.07 average, -0.05 lowachievers

Benefits highperformers 0.12, mid-performers -0.01, lowperformers 0.29

Within-classgrouping

High 0.41,average 0.27, low0.65

0 Works for all students

With regard to secondary school, Slavin states that research comparing ability-grouped to heterogeneous placements provides little support for the proposition that highachievers gain from grouping whereas low achievers lose (Slavin 1990, 486). JeannieOakes states that Even though the research on academic outcomes and tracking isinconsistent in regard to high-track students, it does not appear that they do consistentlybetter in homogeneous groups (Oakes 2005, 194).

XYZ/ability-grouped class assignment. Slavin found no difference in theperformance of high- and low-ability elementary school students (Slavin 1987, 307).Regarding middle grades students, he concludes: The effects of ability grouping [inmiddle grades] were found to be essentially zero for high, average, and lowachievers.(Slavin 1993, 549; see also 545); and studies comparing ability-groupedto heterogeneous placements in the middle grades provide little support for theproposition that high achievers gain from grouping while low achievers lose (Slavin1993, 545). By contrast, Kulik found that XYZ grouping benefits high ability students:

XYZ grouping, therefore, affects different students differently. It gives higheraptitude children a boost and helps them move slightly ahead of their peers inmixed-ability classrooms. XYZ programs have virtually no effect, however, on

the achievement of middle and lower aptitude children. It seems possible thatteachers introduce more challenging materials and methods into higher aptitudeclasses than they would use in mixed-ability situations. Teachers in middle andlower tracks, on the other hand, may teach in much the same way that they do inmixed-ability settings (Kulik 1992, 23).

Likewise, Mosteller, Light and Sachs, noting that perceived differences are not veryreliable, find that research shows a possibility that skill grouping is slightly favorable forhigh-skilled students, and slightly unfavorable for medium- and low-skilled students(Mosteller, Light and Sachs 1996, 805).


21/83

21

Joplin Plan/cross-grade grouping. Slavin and Kulik agree. Slavin states: In nocase did one [elementary school] subgroup gain at the expense of another(Slavin 1987,317). Kulik finds: The positive effects of cross-grade grouping are not restricted to a

single type of student. Cross-grade programs instead appear to work for all students, withboth good and poor students profiting from it (Kulik 1992, 30). Also: Cross-grade andwithin-class programs, however, usually raise test scores of middle and lower aptitudepupils by between 0.2 and 0.3 standard deviations. The clear adjustment of curriculum topupil ability in within-class and cross-grade programs may be the key to theireffectiveness (Kulik 1992, 43).

Within-class ability grouping. Slavin and Kulik agree that within-class groupingbenefits students at all ability levels. Slavin states: There is no evidence to suggest thatachievement gains due to [elementary school] within-class ability grouping inmathematics are achieved at the expense of low achievers; if anything, the evidence

indicates the greatest gains for this subgroup (Slavin 1987, 320; see also 319). Likewise,he finds no differential among performance groups for middle grade students (Slavin1990, 546). Kulik agrees that within-class programs seem to work for all sorts ofstudents. They help the lower aptitude learner, the learner of middle aptitude, and thehigher aptitude learner (Kulik 1992, 33).

Enriched curricula. Burris, Welner and Bezoza summarize research showing thathigh-, middle- and low-achieving students all benefit from accelerated and enrichedcurricula in heterogeneous classes (Burris, Welner and Bezoza 2009, 5-6).

Effect on self-esteem

Kulik, but not Slavin, addresses the comparative effects of the ability groupingschemes on self-esteem of students of different ability levels. Groupings effect onstudent self-esteem is compared to self-esteem in heterogeneous classes. Kulik writesthat When taught in mixed-ability classrooms, high-aptitude students get higher scoreson self-esteem measures than low-aptitude students do (Kulik 1992, 25).

Table 3: Kulik on Differential Effect on Group Self-Esteem

Kulik

Heterogeneous, mixed-

ability classes

Self-esteem greater for high-performers than for low-

performersXYZ/ability-grouped classassignment

Leveling: reduction of high-performer self-esteem;increase in low-performer self-esteem

Joplin plan/cross-gradegrouping

No finding

Within-class grouping

Special enriched classes Small improvement in high-performer self-esteem,relative to XYZ grouping


22/83

22

XYZ/ability-grouped class assignment. Contrasting heterogeneous, mixed abilityclasses, Kulik finds:

The effect of XYZ programs on student self-esteem thus appears to be a levelingeffect. In mixed-ability classes, higher and lower aptitude children are clearlydifferent in self-esteem. In XYZ programs, they become more similar in self-esteem levels. Brighter children lose some of their self-assurance when they areput into classes with equally talented children. Slower children gain inconfidence when they are taught in classes with other slow learners. They mayfeel less overwhelmed and less overshadowed in such classes (Kulik 1992, 27).

Special enriched classes. Kulik contrasts special enriched classes withXYZ/ability grouped class assignment (in which higher-ability students self-esteem haddeclined relative to heterogeneous classes). [S]elf-concepts were more favorable when

the talented students were taught in separate classes.The size of the effect was small ortrivial, however, in all the studies. The average effect size in all 6 studies was 0.10.Teachers in enrichment programs may be better prepared to help students deal withemotional and social pressures of giftedness (Kulik 1992, 41). (It is interesting to notethat Kulik finds restoration of high-ability student self-esteem to be a good thing. Bycontrast, one has the impression that in MCPS the diminution of high-ability studentconfidence is favored.)

Gamoran and Berends conclude from their research survey that longitudinalanalysis has not revealed a consistent causal relation between tracking and attitudes(Gamoran and Berends 1987, 2).

Mosteller, Light and Sachs think that the non-cognitive data tilt in favor of skillgrouping. Student self-reporting studies find that grouped students like school more andperceive themselves as learning more. One favorably cited study finds that the low-skillchildren who are skill grouped speak up far more and for longer periods than similarlyskilled students assigned to whole-class instruction (Mosteller, Light and Sachs 1996,810).

Cooperative learning. With regard to his preferred technique of heterogeneousgrouping, Slavin states Cooperative learning methods have also had consistentlypositive effects on such outcomes as self-esteem, race relations, acceptance of

mainstreamed academically handicapped students, and ability to work cooperatively(Slavin 1993, 546). Johnson and Johnson report data indicating that, in a cooperativelearning setting, students feel more positive about school and each other, and are moreeffective interpersonally (Johnson and Johnson 1988).

Ethnographic studiesJeannie Oakes

Jeannie Oakes 1985 bookKeeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality, isthe foundational text of the detracking movement. The major sources of opposition toability grouping have been Robert Slavin and Jeannie Oakes. Their research is quoted by


23/83

23

both educators and researchers as the basis for abolishing or curtailing programs that maysmack of ability or homogeneous grouping (Tieso 2003). Kulik states that KeepingTrackis the best-known of the ethnographic studies. Oakes is cited, then listed among

suggested readings, in MCEFs Success for Every Student? Tracking and theAchievement Gap (2002, 10, 15, 17, 24, 25).

Oakes observations were made in 25 schools which were the focus of A Studyof Schooling, from the 1970s,

Overall objectives. Oakes purpose is not primarily the presentation and analysisof research observation. Rather, she states two objectives:

First, schools must relinquish their role as agents in reproducing inequities in thelarger society. Schools should cease to sort and select students for future roles in

society. Second, schools must concentrate on equalizing the day-to-dayeducational experiences for all students. This implies altering the structures andcontents of schools that seem to accord greater benefits to some groups ofstudents than to others (205).

These goals drive her observation and argument.

Reproducing inequities. In a central and recurring argument, Oakes assertsthat the actual function of school in society is the preservation of the social, economic,and political inequality that exists in our society (118). Citing Schooling in CapitalistAmerica, Bowles and Gintis (1976), Oakes states that:

[E]ven more important than the differences expected in the type and quantity ofknowledge acquired by students in various educational settings are the differencesexpected in students attitudes toward institutional structures, toward themselves,and toward their anticipated roles in adult society. In other words, in preparingstudents for their lives in the real world, schools must socialize students in veryparticular ways (119).

The educational system turns lower class children into lower-class workers. Therefore,relationships between teachers and students are more positive in high track classes andmore negative in low track classes (124). Low track classes produce the requisite degree

of student apathy. Students learn to accept the unequal features of the larger societyhierarchical authority structures and unequal pay, for exampleas natural (144).

The relationship of tracking, vocational education, and equality is certainly acomplex one, not so much born out of an overt elite conspiracy as emerging aspart of a culture saturated with a hierarchical structure of political, economic, andsocial opportunity. It is likely that these programs do not serve the democraticends most Americans want their schools to serve (171).


24/83

24

The entanglement of ability grouping within hierarchical society and itsmaintenance prevents the gradual upgrading and improvement of ability grouping (forexample, by providing open access to high-track courses or by improving curriculum and

instruction for low-track students). While Oakes thus finds tracking inherently stratifying,Gamoran believes that low-track classes might be made more effective. He suggests thatThe assessments toward which students were striving would need to be tied to futuresthat were more visibly meaningful to students than is currently the case. He suggestssupplemental instruction for struggling students, matching skills to instructional strategiesand affording teachers access to important resources that allowed them to supplementinstruction and tailor it to students needs (Gamoran 2009, 14).

Oakes states: Public schools remain our best hope for achieving a free anddemocratic society in which all have decent lives and rich opportunities (299).However, such reforms can prompt an honest, public dialogue about whether Americans

are ready to extricate schools from the structural inequalities that permeate our lives andundermine our democracy. Detracking reform is surely not enough, but it is auspiciousplace to begin (300).

High SES parents are demonized for their strong sense of entitlement (277),tightly knit leadership (284), community values and politics around race and socialclass that combined with beliefs and ideologies about intelligence (287), and worry thatdemocratizing the high-status curriculum would jeopardize their childrens chances for aplace at the top of the social structure (294). Rockville Centres Carol Burris (seeDetracking below) is quoted as stating that tracking persists because of three potentPspower, prestige, and prejudice (292). These punitive sentiments are applied also

to students. One school is praised for deciding not to single out a higher-achievingstudent who got by without hard work (271). Another schools structure is said to workbest for students who have the work ethic, and are not just innately bright and lazy(272; italics in original). She might consider whether the schools failure to challengethe abilities of the bright and lazy student does not encourage his/her lack of workethic.

Equalizing education. Oakes states that four assumptions support the thengeneral belief that ability grouping helps achieve what we intend in schools:

1. that students learn better when they are grouped with other

students who are considered to be like them academically.

2. that students, especially the slower ones, feel more positivelyabout themselves and school when they are in homogeneous groups.

3. that track placements are appropriate, accurate, and fair.

4. that teaching is easier (with respect to both meeting individualneeds and managing classroom instruction in general) when students are in homogeneousgroups(6-14).


25/83

25

Oakes reasons her way around the first three assumptions, without research data, andpronounces them refuted. The prior section of this paper describes still unsettled research

regarding learning, and research reasonably settled contrary to Oakes regarding self-esteem. She admits that teaching is easier in homogeneous groups.

Oakes found that students in some classes had markedly different access toknowledge and learning experiences from students in other classes (74). High trackstudents are exposed to high-status knowledge: knowledge that would point themtoward different levels in the social and economic hierarchy (75). Also, students indifferent tracks are expected to learn different kinds of behaviors that were not actuallyrelated to the subject they were studyingpersonal deportment and behaviors such ascritical thinking, etc. (84-85). Low track students have less time-on-task (97) and a lowerquality of instruction (105 ff.). Students in high-track classes had significantly more

positive attitudes about themselves and had higher educational aspirations than didstudents in low-track classes (143). Oakes finds a poorer climate in low-trackclassrooms; Gamoran and Berends state that The reported climate differences may alsoresult from differences between schools that vary in the proportion of students in anacademic program, rather than from differences between tracks in each school (Gamoranand Berends 1987, 4).

Oakes states that poor and minority students are most likely to be placed at thelowest levels of the schools sorting system (67). Oakes states that race in itself doesindeed influence track placements, Latinos and African Americans being more likely thanwhites and Asian students to be placed in low-track classes (230). Gamoran differs:

Minority students whose test scores and socioeconomic backgrounds match those ofWhites are no less likely to be placed in high tracks (Gamoran 2009, 5). Rees, Argysand Brewer agree: if one does not control for ability, a strong correlation betweensocioeconomic status and track placement exists (Rees, Argys and Brewer 1996, 87).With regard to race, they state:

It is clear from these table that blacks and Hispanics are less likely to be enrolledin upper-tack classes, and more likely to be enrolled in non-academic classes thanwhites.Overall, that datasupport the often voiced criticism that abilitygrouping tends to lead to race separation (see, for instance, Oakes, 1992, p.13)(Rees, Argys and Brewer 1996, 87).

Rumberger and Palardy study the effect of school racial and socio-economiccomposition on achievement. They determine that between 40% and 80% of thevariability in achievement growth is related to differences among students, and between20% and 60% is due to differences among schools they attend (Rumberger and Palardy2005, 2011), with the relative balance varying by academic subject. (Unlike Oakes, theyaccount for factors outside of school and/or peculiar to the individual student as affectinglearning within school.) They then ask whether, with regard to the between-schooldifference, the influence of peers affects achievement directly, or indirectly operating


26/83

26

through their association with resources and the organizational and structural features ofschools (2007). They conclude:

Our results suggest that the reason school SES matters is that it is related to a

number of school processes that predict achievement growth. In other words,school SES may indirectly affect achievement growth in high school byinfluencing what is available in certain schools in terms of processes andopportunities.

In the case of the composite measure of achievement, four school processvariables were significant:

1. Teachers expectations about students ability to learn

2. The average hours of homework that students completed per week

3. The average number of advanced (college prep) courses taken by students inthe school

4. The percentage of students who reported feeling unsafe at school (2015-2016;italics in original).

(The authors cite Oakes as supporting their research conclusions.) These factors areconclusive regarding school SES effect: That is, after controlling for the effects ofschool policies and practices, the socioeconomic composition had no significant impact

on student learning (2021; italics in original).

Rumberger and Palardy do not examine whether the first three processvariablesexpectations, hours homework and advanced coursesare a realistic andappropriate accommodation to low-SES student abilities or, as Oakes argues, the unequaltreatment and subordination of these students.

Oakes recommends that homogeneous grouping be replaced by cooperativelearningworking with others in small heterogeneous groups, in which the substantialinstructional potential of student-to-student interaction is exploited (208). Students haveincentives to interact; learner differences are accommodated in the learning process; and

the effect of initial differences in students skills are minimized in assigning rewards forlearning (210).

Democracy (in the sense discussed by Oakes) and interracial relationships areimportant objectives of cooperative learning. Slavin and Cooper note that:

[C]hildren often re-create the status differences of the larger society in theirgroups. Students possessing high-status characteristics tend to command moreattention and participate more actively than those possessing lower statuscharacteristics. Individual differences in participation, when they coincide with


27/83

27

social status differences, undercut the goal of creating equal status in cooperativegroups. To remedy this situation, Cohen and her colleagues train teachers on howto raise the status of a child by making a pointed and public comment on the

childs skill.

Research has demonstrated that cooperative learning techniques increase cross-racial friendships.

Cooperative learning promotes some of the most important goals in Americaneducation: increasing the academic achievement of all students while simultaneouslyimproving intergroup relations among students of different racial and ethnic backgrounds(Slavin and Cooper, 1999).

Merit and equality. Oakes considers meritocracy and equality:

Meritocracy is based not on equality itself but on the ideal of equality ofopportunity, on fairness. In schools this is translated to mean that every student isgiven an equal chance to do well. If a student does not, it is due to the lack ofability, initiative, or sustained effort on the students part not [sic] to any schoolpractices that might have gotten in the way. Educational equality itself can meansomething quite different. It can mean that all students are provided with thesame kinds of experience in schoolsa common set of learnings, equallyeffective instruction, and equally encouraging educational settings. Our datashow that in the twenty-five schools we studied students were not treated equallyin their attempt to learn English and math.

But notions of equality can go even further than this concept of equal treatment.Educational equality can be interpreted to mean that students are provided withthe resources necessary to ensure that they are all likely to acquire a specified setof learnings (135).

She rejects meritocracy, which she finds based on wealth: We must abandon thewishful thinking that advantaged Americans wealth and happiness rest on a moralplatform of merit, and that their childrens advantages make them more deserving ofschooling opportunities and life chances (300). (Burris, Welner and Bezoza state withregard to the no-track Preuss School described below that the lines were drawn between

the proponents of meritocracy, couched as excellence, and those of equity (Burris,Welner and Bezoza 2009, 15).)

Oakes contrasts meritocracy--equality of opportunity, equal treatment, andidentity of learnings. Meritocracy is defined as an equal chance to do well, as ifdoing well were identical for each student and across all demographic and socio-economic groups. Specific objectives are projected as good, and gaining them dependsupon individual student merit, without taking school input into account. For Oakes,merit is a false projection of being morally deserving in the hierarchical, wealth-based, society. Equal treatment apparently entails an identity of inputs by the school,


28/83

28

again assuming individual student merit in making use of those inputs. Oakes advocatesthat students actually acquire the same learnings, which is to be ensured by theschool alone.

Shifting the focus to schools alone. Consistent with her position that schoolsshould ensure equal learnings, Oakes intends to shift the perspective from attributesthat reside in the student because, while important in the school-learningprocessthey are not factors over which schools have much control (73). She admitsthat It is nearly impossible to sort out these complex factors to produce neat causalexplanations for how students end up in a low track in high school. It is probably safe toassume that an interaction of student characteristics and school experience, or evenschool treatment is responsible for low track student behavior characteristics (131).Oakes interest in social hierarchy requires focus on an institutional mechanism of itsexistence and rectification. However, this exclusive focus vitiates the value of Oakes

analysis: the interaction between student and school, individual and institution, is vital toboth social theory and school improvement. Gamoran and Berends call for future studiesto examine these conditions prior to tracking as well as subsequently. Such evidencewould make it possible to disentangle track effects from the influence of preexistingconditions (Gamoran and Berends 1987, 21).

Despite her admission that she fails to determine causality, and without presentingexperimental research, Oakes states that schools cause inequality:

Further, it seems equally apparent that negative academic results come about forthese students because of tracking. Classroom differences that inhibit the learning

of those in low and average groups are a result of placing these similar studentstogether for instruction. These differences are institutionally created andperpetuated by tracking (194; italics in original).

Schools can ensure equal learnings through control of the determinative factors, butthey do not; rather they employ institutional practices that cause inequality.

Criticisms of Oakes. Slavin criticizes Oakes for extrapolation from observationto evaluation. Hers is one of many studies examining classroom practices in high- andlow-ability classes and ability groups. Although such studies provide importantdescriptive information, they cannot answer the question of whether or not the effects of

ability grouping per se are positive (Slavin 1987, 329). Similarly, Tieso cites Bode thatresearch supporting the equity argument is largely qualitative and anecdotal in nature(Tieso 2003).

Kulik criticizes Oakes for failing to compare her observations of trackedprograms to conditions in the heterogeneous classrooms:

[E]thnographers are making a serious error in ignoring data from schools andclasses that are not tracked.Although the book deals at length with observationsmade in upper and lower tracks, it does not described any of the results from


29/83

29

mixed-ability classes. In brushing aside observations of mixed-ability classes,Oakes appears to have brushed aside the possibility of meaningful answers (Kulik1992, 14).

He concludes:

Oakess conclusions, however, are based on her own selective and idiosyncraticreview of older summaries of the literature and on her uncontrolled classroomobservations. Objective analysis of findings from controlled studies provides nosupport for her speculations. Whereas Oakes believes that grouping programs areunnecessary, ineffective, and unfair, I conclude that the opposite is true.American education would be harmed by the elimination of programs that provideinstruction adapted to the aptitude, achievement, and interests of groups withspecial educational needs (Kulik 1992, 43).

Oakes social theory undermines her ethnography. Her book is less a study ofschools and more a vision of the Dickensian evils of society and tract for democraticsocial revolution. By refusing to account for the role of the individual student and factorsoutside school, Oakes displays a reformers radicalism. Her socio-political commitmentscloud her study.

Oakes reveals, without herself recognizing, the entanglement of two differentmanifestations of elitism: that of social position and that of learning. One can agree withher that schooling institutionalizes the replication of social position. However, learningnot only facilitates social positioning, but also is valuable and valued in itself; such that

the elitist striving for mastery and excellence in learning need not merely be the debasedtool of suppression, but may be may a praise-worthy orientation to the world. Elitismmay manifest itself not as the subordination of others but as the overcoming of self.

Oakes assumes, with no attempt to justify, the universal appeal of her vision ofdemocracy. She envisions that everyone should possess the same goods. This differsfrom our traditional political conception. While equal treatment corresponds with themodern political conception, so does individual striving to capture the potential of thattreatment. While we value social and economic mobility, we also value and reward elitiststriving and excellence. A strain of egalitarianism believes that all status rankings areevil. But wholly compatible with equity is the notion that status distinctions are a good

thing as long as they are awarded fairly and for the right accomplishments (Loveless1999).

Zealous moralism inspires the nave assumption that social hierarchy can beoverthrown. Rather, social hierarchy appears to be one constant facet of humanorganization. The impulsion to reproduce position within the hierarchy is hardly peculiarto high-SES white people.

School administrators should not commandeer the public schools as theinstrument for achieving a free and democratic society in which all have decent lives


30/83

30

and rich opportunities (299) by possessing the same goods within an upended hierarchy.In a democratic society, the stakeholders in the school should make that determination.They almost certainly would readjust the balance toward instructional effectiveness and

excellence, and equal treatment if not meritocracy.

Other ethnography: teachers. Rosenbaum interviewed teachers in detrackedsocial studies classes of a Midwestern suburban high school. He found that teachersfaced irresolvable conflicts, pulled in conflicting directions. When teachers attended toone group, others became disengaged. They tried teaching to the middle of the class; butas they did, they were acutely aware of losing students at both extremes (Rosenbaum1999, 2). Teachers tried to give high ability students extra assignments, but wereburdened with extra preparation time and resistance in doing assignments that less ablestudents were not required to do. High ability students posed questions that two-thirds ofstudents in the classroom did not understand; so teachers gave abbreviated responses and

returned to the central classroom trend. Teachers faced a conflict about languagevirtually every minute. Because they had to be intelligible to all students, teachers usedlanguage that was generally far below the vocabulary of faster students (2-3). More ablestudents comments required rephrasing by teachers: The faster students did not fit intothe class, except by translation (3). Homework was geared to the capacity of middle andlower students, with the result that higher-ability students finished most of it at schooland did little homework at night (4).

Likewise, lower-ability students were harmed:

[N]early all the teachers said they believed that detracking harmed slower

students academically because teachers could not retard the pace of the classenough to allow the slower students to keep up or give these kids the individualattention they needed (3).

While the pace was geared to mid-level students, they received little individual attention.

Bright minority students were shortchanged (4).

Because teachers could not expect all of their students to meet the samestandards, minimum acceptable standards were lowered or the assessment rubric wasskewed. Detracking increases the conflicts between challenge, achievement, and effort.

These teachers responded by grading faster students on achievement, and slower studentson effort. This deprived faster students of challenge and slower students of mastery (4).

Teachers faced doubts about classroom legitimacy (4). One teacher said thatsometimes she apologizes to the high-level kids: Its sort of like Im sorry kids, butbear with me. Teachers found that sort of teacher-student exchange embarrassing andsaid it raised doubts about the classs legitimacy among students at all levelsespeciallysince teachers agreed with students impatience and were reluctant to criticize theirchallenges (4).


31/83

31

Detracking

Why detrack? Detracking might be undertaken for one or more interrelated

reasons:

1. Equity and democracy (generally as understood by Jeannie Oakes);

2. Raising low-performers to proficiency, to avoid NCLB sanction;

3. Efficiency of aligned programming;

4. Increase student performance outcomes.

Equity and democracy. Slavin attempts to shift the burden of proof to the trackers

on this basis:

Given the antidemocratic, antiegalitarian nature of ability grouping, the burden ofproof should be on those who would group rather than those who favorheterogeneous grouping, and in the absence of evidence that grouping isbeneficial, it is hard to justify continuation of the practice (Slavin 1990, 494).

As argued above against Oakes, the antidemocratic and inequitable nature of abilitygrouping is not given. Nor does it then seem meaningful to weigh the philosophicalindeterminacy of equity against the still inconclusive research on achievement.Therefore, Slavins point has no force.

NCLB. Welner and Burris state:

In todays environment of accountability systems with disaggregated test scores,the recognition that low-track classes produce lower achievement ties this[detracking] reform to practical, as well as social justice concerns [citationomitted]. Lesser opportunities to learn logically translate into lower test scoresand, therefore, lesser likelihood that the school and district will meet the adequateyearly progress targets re

gifted and talented ability grouping

Documents