The document discusses the practice of tracking and ability grouping in schools. It defines tracking as assigning students to different classes based on test scores, while ability grouping involves temporarily placing students in classes based on skill level. Research has found mixed results on the benefits, with high-achieving students showing higher achievement but lower-tracked students falling further behind over time. Critics argue tracking leads to inequitable resources and outcomes between groups and reinforces social stratification.

1. Tracking and Ability GroupingMultimedia PresentationLucia Martin & Ervin PatrickEDUC 6242The George Washington University

2. The Positive Effects of Tracking & Ability Grouping“Education in a democracy promises that everyone will have an equal opportunity to actualize their potential, to learn as much as they can” (Fiedler, Lange, Winebrenner, 2002).They only way to do this, to be able to have every student reach their potential and give as much as they can give, is by dividing our classrooms into groups based on the student's particular abilities.

3. Ability Grouping is not Tracking When students are “tracked” in school, they are put into different group based on their performance on tests and measured intelligence test results. This type of division of students results in one group (the high ability group) being assigned to teacher X and the other group (the “regular” group) being assigned to teacher Y.Usually, once a student is placed on this “track” they are stuck there for the duration of their school years. Grouping by ability is not tracking, it is a division of students into groups based on a particular ability.

4. What is Ability Grouping?“ The commonly accepted meaning of ability grouping, relates to re-grouping students for the purpose of providing curriculum aimed at a common instructional level…it means placing students with other students whose learning needs are similar to theirs for whatever length of time works best” (Fiedler, Lange, Winebrenner, 2002).Ability grouping varies by level, elementary vs. high schoolMore common in High School, particularly in the areas of Math and EnglishIn Elementary the grouping occurs within the classroomWhen students are grouped by ability they are not “stuck” in that group for the rest of their educational careers, usually they evaluated on a yearly basis and groups are shifted around as needed.

5. Grouping PracticesThe two main grouping practices used when grouping by ability:In Between Class or Joplin Plan Grouping: it is a temporary grouping arrangementthe curriculum is developed in accordance to the student’s needsit reduces heterogeneity in the classroom without affecting the self-esteem of those students that are not in the high level trackWithin Class Grouping:students are divided into small groups within the same classroom based on their performance and levels of prior knowledge

6. Ability Grouping: Success at all levelsTeachers can adapt their instruction to a particular levelFor the high achievers:can receive more challenging material that will exalt their learningthe challenge of having the stimulus of other high achievers in the same classroom is very beneficial. They will also realize that there are others like them and they will not become “elitist intellectuals”, a belief that is usually fostered when heterogeneous groups exist. Students that need more academic support can receive itWhen students are divided into homogenous classroom more “learning” takes place and students tend to be more successful

7. Ability Grouping: Success at all levelsHeterogeneous grouping can have a negative effect on both groups of students alike:“When Bill (the gifted one) was in class, it was like the sun shining on a bright, clear day. But, when he went out to work with the other gifted kids, it was like when the sun goes over the horizon. The rest of us were like the moon and the stars; that’s when we finally got a chance to shine” (Fiedler, 2002).If they curriculum being taught, to both high achievers and the “regular” group, is similar but differentiated across the board, grouping the high achieving students is not “detrimental to the academic, emotional, or social growth of students not included in such a class” (Shields, 2002).

8. The ResultsAccording to Kulik (1982) nine out of his eleven studies demonstrated a higher level of overall achievement when flexible grouping arrangements/grouping by ability had taken place.

9. The Negative Effects of Tracking & Ability GroupingTracking and ability grouping is one of the most controversial practices in education. There has been an extensive amount of research on tracking and ability grouping yielding varying results. Some critics of the practice believe that tracking does not benefit any students and only places lower-level students in a position where they are at a greater risk of failure.

10. The Negative Effects of Tracking & Ability GroupingTracking and ability grouping has also been considered as another manner in which students are labeled. Once students are labeled, they typically stay in these groups for the remainder of their educational career. Grouping of students further highlights the differences among them and leads to further stratification of society.

11. Consider…Students in lower track classes tend to stay in lower track classesStudents in lower track courses are often given a less rigorous curriculumStudents in lower track courses are taught by less trained teachersTracking and ability grouping leads to social stratificationThere is little evidence to support the use of tracking and ability grouping

12. Students in lower track classes tend to stay in lower track classesOnce students are placed in lower-level tracks, it is increasingly difficult for them to work their way out of this classification and gain entrance into higher-level courses.The effects of tracking produces slower rates of learning and cause lower levels of motivation for those students at the bottom.

13. Change in Track Level After Grade 10(% of schools)(Loveless, 1998)

14. Students in lower track courses are often given a less rigorous curriculumLow tracks often emphasize good behavior and menial skills, while high tracks offer preparation for college.In classrooms that practice ability grouping lower grouped students are much more likely to be assigned lesson plans that emphasize rote memorization and routinized kinds of thinking while higher-grouped students are assigned more challenging lessons that develop reading comprehension skills (ScienceDaily, 2009).

15. Students in lower track courses aretaught by less trained teachersUnequal assignment of teachers creates an ongoing discrepancy in access to educational resources and curriculum offerings required for lower-level students.“Observers report that high-track teachers are more enthusiastic and spend more time preparing. Teachers may compete for the opportunity to teach honors and accelerated classes and those with more experience or better reputations tend to win the privilege” (Gamoran, 1992).

16. Tracking and ability grouping leads to social stratificationAnother new study by Sussex Researchers shows that children are being placed in ability groups according to social class, with pupils from middle-class backgrounds more likely to be assigned to higher sets, irrespective of their prior attainment (ScienceDaily, 2007).Despite this intended benefit, tracking has been widely criticized as inegalitarian because students in high tracks tend to widen their achievement advantages over their low-track peers (Gamoran, 2009).

17. There is little evidence to support the use of tracking and ability groupingWith low-group losses offsetting high-group gains, the effects on productivity were about zero, but the impact on inequality was substantial (Gamoran, 1992).The more rigid the tracking system, the more research studies have found no benefits to overall school achievement and serious detriments to equity.

18. What Effect Does Tracking Have on Student Outcomes?UNTRACKEDHIHIGHTRACKEDMEDACHIEVEMENTLOWLOWTIME 2TIME 1

19. ReferencesBozzone, M. [Interview with Anne Wheelock, author of Crossing the Tracks: How “Untracking” Can Save America’s Schools].Checkley, Kathy. (1996, November). Focusing on Teacher Quality, Education Update, volume 38 (issue 7).Fiedler, E.D., Lange, R.E., Winebrenner, S. (2002). In search of reality: Unraveling the myths about tracking, ability grouping and the gifted. Roeper Review, 24. Retrieved July 4, 2011, from the Questia online library. Futrell, M. & Gomez, J. (2008, May). How Tracking Creates a Learning of Poverty. Educational Leadership, volume 65 (issue 8), pages 74-78.Gamoran, A. (1992, October). Synthesis of Research / Is Ability Grouping Equitable? Educational Leadership, volume 50 (issue 2), pages 11-17.Gamoran, A. (2009, August). Tracking and Inequality: New Directions for Research and Practice. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED506617)George, P. S., (1988). What’s the truth about tracking and ability grouping really? An explanation for teachers and parents. Gainesville, Florida: University of Florida Teacher Education Resources.Kulik, C-L, C., Kulik, J.A. (1982). Effects of ability grouping on secondary school students: A meta-analysis of evaluation findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19 (3), 414-428. Retrieved July 4, 2011, from the Questia online library.Lleras, C. & Rangel, C. (2009, February). Ability Grouping Practices in Elementary School and African American/Hispanic Achievement. American Journal of Education, volume 115 (issue 2), pages 279-304.Loveless, T. (1998, August). Making Sense of the Tracking and Ability Grouping Debate. Retrieved from http://www.edexcellence.net/publications-issues/publications/tracking.htmlShields, C.M. (2002). A comparison study of student attitudes and perceptions in homogeneous and heterogeneous classrooms. Roeper Review, 24 (3). Retrieved July 20, 2011, from the Questia online library. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (2009, April). Ability Grouping In Elementary School Hampers Minority Students' Literacy. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090421120904.htmUniversity of Sussex (2007, September). Grouping Kids By Ability Harms Education, Two Studies Show. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070915104849.htmWalker, E. (2007, November). Why Aren’t More Minorities Taking Advanced Math? Educational Leadership, volume 65 (issue 3), pages 48-53.