We are in a way like
snowflakes- you’ll never find two of us exactly the same. We have different
intellect. Different perception. Different personality. Different opinions. And
that’s perfectly fine, because after all, that is what makes us humans. John F.
Kennedy said it best when he said ‘If we cannot now end our differences, at
least we can help make the world safe for diversity,’. Let this diversity begin
with the classroom. When you are normalising the concept of diversity, you are helping promote a
tolerant lifestyle free from racism, sexism, and discrimination. You’ll soon
see that with ability grouping, this diversity has no place. After the
abolishment of slavery in 1865, it didn’t take much squinting to observe its
remnants. And one of those remnants was segregation, and most notably of the
classroom. Back then it was an issue of colour. Now it is an issue of abilities
and ‘intellect’. Ask yourself: Do you support discrimination by race? By colour? Ethnicity? Religion? Nationality?
Financial status? Now, by grades, or abilities per se? No matter how much you
try to sugar-coat or manipulate ability grouping, it is segregation incarnate
hidden behind a mask. Supporting such a primitive idea would be a walk towards
the past, because after all, history repeats itself, no?
Let us begin with the factual side. In a
British study, Fogelman and Kerchkoff observed more than 9000 students in
grouped and ungrouped schools for a period of 5 years. Their research shows
that grouped high-achieving students performed better than similar high-achieving
students in an ungrouped environment. And right now, you might stop me and ask
‘Doesn’t this disprove your claim?’ Well, on the other hand, grouped low-achieving
students and remedial students did worse than their ungrouped peers. With this offset between high-achieving,
low-achieving, and remedial students, the effect was reset to zero. Thus, in
their conclusion, they stated that there was no significant overall positive
impact. Moreover, Miriam Goldberg
published a 254-page research titled The Effects of Ability Grouping that
supports this claim. Her research depends on data extracted from observing more
than 2000 fifth and sixth graders who were tracked.
It’s not just independent researchers that claim ability grouping is a failed hypothesis. The NEA, or National Education
Association, is the largest professional organisation committed to advancing
public education. Among their work is researching, surveying, and debunking
myths about education. The NEA has studied ability grouping in a research
titled Research Spotlight on Academic Ability
Grouping. In it, they’ve supported the elimination of ability grouping,
saying it has no positive impact.
Before I discuss the morality of ability grouping, I’ll first move
to an issue that is both factual and moral. There was and still is a placement system for reading
in most schools. You were either placed in the “high-ability reading group” or
the “low-ability reading group”. Even though the teacher tried to make it
discreet by giving each group a cute name, it didn’t need much brainpower to
figure out which group was which. The
children would always suffer in embarrassment as they realised they were in the low-ability group. Martha
Wong’s research Self-esteem and Ability Grouping: A Hong Kong Investigation
of the Big Fish Little Pond Effect supports a direct relation between
self-esteem and achievement. The higher the self-esteem, the higher the
score. You may ask ‘How can you prove
that a self-esteem drop is resultant from ability grouping? Two reasons. First,
as mentioned in the previous point, low-achieving grouped students experienced
an academic decrease. Second, according to Helen Abadzi’s Ability Grouping
Effects on Academic Achievement and Self-Esteem: Who Performs in the Long Run
as Expected, this decrease of self-esteem can be attributed to grouping. Do
you see what’s happening? It becomes an endless cycle of a student being less
confident, getting lower marks, and as a result, their self-esteem drops again.
With lower self-esteem comes more mental health problems, such as anxiety,
bipolarity, paranoia and, worst case scenario, depression and suicide. Is the
emotional distress really worth it?
And finally, I'll transition to the complete moral
side of this claim. You can never have the perfect blend in a classroom. But if
you want to have the most homogenous mix in a class, then ability grouping is
your best friend. Picture two classrooms: one of them filled to the brim with
high-achieving and the other with low-achieving students. The first classroom
is the embodiment of stress. The competition is fierce, and each person tries
to come out on top. The burden of achievement almost breaks their backs. The
second classroom is the embodiment of depression. Each student believes that
they are less than worthless and has been discarded into a separate classroom. Simply
put, this is discrimination. Defined as ‘the
unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people’,
discrimination is already present in schools in the form of racism, sexism,
xenophobia, and so on.
Killing diversity is never the answer.
Sacrificing the lesser for the higher is not only beyond inhumane, but it is as
primitive as we can get. We are too preoccupied thinking of the minimal
positive effects ability grouping might have on high-achieving students that
we’re ignoring the lower-achieving students. We are walking blindfolded, using
any method to achieve what we yearn for without paying attention to the effects
it has on our soul and our humanity. The evidence is loud and clear and can be
summarised into two parts.
Factually
- Grouping is ineffective according to the large majority of credible studies. Studies have universally shown that there is a severe negative impact on low-achieving students, not just academically, but also emotionally.
Morally
- Grouping is considered as discrimination and a form of segregation, and can have negative impacts on a child’s sense of importance, confidence, and motivation.
References
With Regards to Negative Effects
- “The
Negative Effects of Ability Grouping.” Australian
Council for Educational Research - ACER, 27 Mar. 2018, https://www.teachermagazine.com.au/articles/the-negative-effects-of-ability-grouping.
- Ascd.
“Synthesis of Research / Is Ability Grouping Equitable?” Synthesis of Research / Is Ability Grouping
Equitable? - Educational Leadership,
http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/oct92/vol50/num02/Synthesis-of-Research-~-Is-Ability-Grouping-Equitable¢.aspx.Fogelman, K.
(1983). “Ability Grouping in the Secondary School.” In Growing Up in Great Britain: Papers from the National Child
Development Study, edited by K. Fogelman. London: Macmillan.
- Gamoran, A., and M. Nystrand. (1990). “Tracking, Instruction, and Achievement.” Paper presented at the World Congress of Sociology, Madrid.
- “The Effects of Ability Grouping / by Miriam L. Goldberg, A. Harry Passow and Joseph Justman. - Version Details.” Trove, https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/10616276?selectedversion=NBD65067.
- Wong, Martha. “Self-Esteem and Ability Grouping: A Hong Kong
Investigation of the Big Fish Little Pond Effect.” Taylor and Francis Online,
www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01443410123082. http://www.nea.org/tools/16899.htm
- Vergon, Chuck. “Race, Ability Grouping, and the Law in American Education.” Incineration at the MOTCO Superfund Site, Texas City, Texas, webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/virtual_disk_library/index.cgi/4273355/FID840/eqtyres/erg/111413/1413.htm.
With Regards to Self-Esteem
- Abadzi, Helen. Ability Grouping Effects on Academic Achievement and Self ...psych.wisc.edu/henriques/papers/Abadzi.pdf.
- “Self-Esteem and Ability Grouping: A Hong Kong Investigation of the Big Fish Little Pond Effect.” Taylor and Francis Online, www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01443410123082.
Comments
Post a Comment