by Sugi Sorensen, Feb. 25, 2018
Definitions
Heterogeneous versus homogenous grouping, and tracking, have been hotly debated educational topics since the mid 20th century. Hetergeneous grouping, as currently exists in La Cañada Unified School District (LCUSD) elementary schools, combines all students of mixed abilities into the same class or learning group. Homogeneous grouping places students of similar ability or prior achievement in groups or the same class for instruction.
Heterogeneous and homogenous grouping may be implemented at the class level, within a classroom for specific group activities, by subject, or even by school, though that is not done in LCUSD. Homogeneous grouping can also be implemented across grades.
Tracking, as defined by Tom Loveless in his 1998 paper “Making Sense of Tracking and the Ability Grouping Debate” for the Thomas Fordham Institute is:
“Tracking referred to a practice in which high schools tested students, typically with both achievement and IQ tests, and used these scores to place students into separate curricular tracks, or ‘streams,’ as they are called in Europe. The tracks covered distinctly different curricula, were binding across all academic subjects, and led to different destinations upon graduation. Three tracks were common: (1) a high track, made up of college-preparatory or honors courses that readied students for admission to top colleges and universities; (2) a general track that served as a catch-all for the huge group of students in the middle, those neither gifted nor deficient in their studies or those simply unsure of what they would do after high school, and (3) a low track, consisting of vocational courses and a smattering of low-level academic offerings, such as consumer math, and serving mainly low functioning and indifferent students.”
Tracking as used now is not as broadly defined since Americans do not typically split high school curriculum into college and vocational tracks as is the common practice in some European countries. Here tracking now refers to the grouping of students by ability between classes, commonly used in middle and high schools.
Practice Within LCUSD
Classes in LCUSD elementary schools are grouped heterogeneously, with students of different abilities distributed roughly evenly between classes within a grade. About seven years ago, students in the upper elementary grades (i.e. 5th and 6th) were homogeneously grouped into regular and advanced classes for mathematics instruction only, but only within a grade. The practice was abandoned after the district noticed the policy was unevenly implemented across the three district elementary schools (i.e. two schools implemented homogeneous grouping only during mathematics instruction time, while the third kept students in the same groups for the entire school day), parents complained about which group their children were placed in, and some students in the regular math class were labelled negatively.
Homogeneous grouping is widely used in the La Canada High School and middle school, and still selectively used in the elementary schools. For example GATE-identified and special needs students in elementary schools are pulled out of class and given special instruction at select intervals. Many teachers in the lower elementary grades group early- and late-bird students by reading ability.
Tracking is used in LCUSD in the middle and high schools. District staff have defined two mathematics tracks in the middle and high school, one is called the “College Prep Track”, and the other an “Advanced College Prep Track” :
Similarly, the La Canada middle and high schools usually offer “honors” or Advanced Placement versions of most science and selective English and history classes as well. In addition, some students accelerate and take classes one to three grade levels sooner than the prescribed grade in the district-defined tracks. Acceleration in mathematics courses is governed by a specific LCUSD Board Policy — 6152.1 Placement in Mathematics Courses and Administrative Rule –– AR.6152 Placement in Mathematics Courses:.
Tracking is not limited to merely two tracks in all school districts. For example, in the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District, five different tracks are offered for mathematics in the high school (see the PVPUSD mathematics department website for a description of the tracks.)
Tracking is not used in the district elementary schools. Here, as in most other public schools in the United States, a combination of homogeneous and heterogeneous grouping is used in the elementary grades.
Arguments for and Against Homogeneous and Heterogeneous Grouping
Supporters of heterogenous grouping believe it allows students to learn from each other’s differences and actively interact with diverse individuals, that slower learners benefit from faster learners during group activities, that divergent abilities encourages richer levels of student discussion, and that more advanced students learn material to a greater depth when they have to support or explain their work to less advanced students. Heterogeneous group supporters also strongly oppose tracking or homogeneous grouping on the basis of justice and fairness. They believe students in lower groups or tracks are condemned to lower opportunities and outcomes. Typical of the opposition to ability grouping, authors Leon Lynn and Anne Wheelock in a special January/February 1999 edition of the Harvard Education Letter wrote:
“Evidence is mounting that schools that reserve the highest quality educational opportunities for the ‘best’ students — as determined by a selection process that is often flawed and discriminatory — are denying many students the opportunity to achieve their full potential. This injustice is made even more onerous by the rising importance of standards-based school reform, which seeks to hold all students and schools accountable to higher levels of learning. Schools cannot embrace high standards for all students without addressing the barriers that prevent many students from equal educational opportunity.”
A common practice of supporters of heterogenous grouping is to create small group activities where abilities are intentionally mixed. As quoted on this teacher support website, “If choosing to have heterogeneous groupings, try to divide them by having one gifted student, two average students, and one lower achieving student. This ratio of students will allow all students to benefit from the others, while not making one student take on too much of the burden of work or leadership.”
On the other hand, critics of heterogeneous grouping point out while the goal remains laudable, the outcomes are usually less than ideal. “Social loafing”, or the tendency of group members to let others do the work, frequently occurs and the gifted or higher ability students are expected to do most of the work. As explained by a different teacher (in “Student Learning Groups: Homogeneous or Heterogeneous? Whether to form groups with students of similar ability or mixed ability depends on the purpose of the learning activity” by Ben Johnson),
“…if the purpose (of a group learning activity) is to encourage medium ability groups to learn at high levels, homogeneous grouping would be better.
I learned this as a teacher when one of my gifted and talented students told me in confidence that she really hated being in heterogeneous groups (she said it differently, of course) all the time because by default, the other members of the group expected her to be the leader, organize things, and do all the work.
This was a tipping point for me, because it made me realize that I wasn’t grouping students for increased learning. I was using grouping mainly as a discipline management tool, and in actuality my attempt to increase student engagement had completely backfired. By always making sure that the ‘smart’ students and the struggling students were equally divided in the groups, I was actually limiting the student participation to the de facto leaders of the groups.”
In fact, gifted advocacy groups define forced heterogeneous grouping as a form of discrimination against gifted students.
What Does the Research Show?
Perhaps the best summary of the research on the efficacy of homogeneous versus heterogeneous grouping comes from Loveless’ above-linked 1998 report on “Making Sense of Tracking and the Ability Grouping Debate“:
“The research on tracking and ability grouping is frequently summarized in one word: inconclusive. … Assigning students to separate classes by ability and providing them with the same curriculum has no effect on achievement. When the curriculum is altered, tracking appears to benefit high ability students. Heterogeneous classes appear to benefit low ability students but depress the achievement of average and high achieving students.”
How did Loveless reach this conclusion? He examined two of the most widely cited researchers of meta-analyses on tracking and grouping. The two authors just happened to support different sides of the homogeneous versus heterogeneous grouping debate:
“Tracking’s non-effect on achievement can be appreciated by contrasting the conclusions of two prominent analysts, Robert Slavin, a critic of tracking, and James G. Kulik, a defender of some forms of tracking and ability grouping. Both have conducted meta-analyses of tracking and ability grouping. A meta-analysis is essentially a study of studies. The analyst pools the existing studies that meet certain criteria for quality and statistically summarizes what they say. As an example of the massive amount of material with which a meta-analysis on this topic begins, Kulik’s initial search uncovered over 700 studies on tracking and ability grouping.
First, the points of agreement. Slavin and Kulik agree that studies of within-class ability grouping are positive, with Slavin’s support largely resting on the benefits uncovered for grouping in mathematics in the upper grades of elementary school. They also agree that cross-grade ability grouping boosts achievement in elementary schools.”
Loveless’ paper was written in 1998. What has educational research found since then? The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development synthesized the research between 1998 and 2003 in the following article as it pertains for grouping gifted students:
- “Research Link: Grouping Gifted Students” by John H. Holloway in Educational Leadership, October 2003, Volume 61, Number 2
An excerpt follows:
“Can gifted students receive effective instruction in the regular classroom? Lisa Benson (2002), a classroom teacher, observes that in her experience, gifted students quickly become frustrated in mixed-ability classes, especially those gifted students who exhibit a high degree of creativity. Further, she believes that the typical large classroom lacks the necessary resources to serve all students well.
Do most researchers agree with this practitioner’s assessment?
…Rogers (2002) analyzed the research on various grouping options for gifted learners and found that full-time gifted programs demonstrate the strongest benefits, followed by cluster grouping within heterogeneous classes (an arrangement in which the top five to eight gifted learners at a grade level are placed in one classroom with a classroom teacher who has special training in gifted education); acceleration of the curriculum through such methods as grade telescoping (time compression of the junior or senior high school curriculum); regrouping for enriched learning in specific subjects; cross-grade grouping or nongraded classrooms; enrichment pullout programs; and within-class ability grouping. Rogers also found that cooperative grouping, which has demonstrated benefits for most learners, has not been shown to enhance learning for gifted learners. On the basis of her research review, Rogers concluded that gifted students need some form of grouping by ability so that their curriculum may be appropriately broadened and extended.
Shields (2002) supports Rogers’s findings. Her research found that homogeneous grouping generally had a significant, positive effect on gifted students’ academic achievement, attitudes concerning themselves as learners, and school experiences. But what about the students who were not identified as gifted and who were left behind in the regular classes? According to Shields, students placed appropriately in regular classes did not suffer socially or emotionally when students identified as academically talented or gifted were served in separate, homogeneous classes.”
A more recent second order meta-analysis of 100 years of research on ability grouping and acceleration from 2016 supports the finding that most studies show increased learning from homogeneous grouping:
- “What One Hundred Years of Research Says About the Effects of Ability Grouping and Acceleration on K–12 Students’ Academic Achievement: Findings of Two Second-Order Meta-Analyses” in Review of Educational Research, December 1, 2016 by Saiying Steenbergen-Hu, Matthew C. Makel, Paula Olszewski-Kubilius
“ABSTRACT: Two second-order meta-analyses synthesized approximately 100 years of research on the effects of ability grouping and acceleration on K–12 students’ academic achievement. Outcomes of 13 ability grouping meta-analyses showed that students benefited from within-class grouping (0.19 ≤ g ≤ 0.30), cross-grade subject grouping (g = 0.26), and special grouping for the gifted (g = 0.37), but did not benefit from between-class grouping (0.04 ≤ g ≤0.06); the effects did not vary for high-, medium-, and low-ability students. Three acceleration meta-analyses showed that accelerated students significantly outperformed their nonaccelerated same-age peers (g = 0.70) but did not differ significantly from nonaccelerated older peers (g = 0.09). Three other meta-analyses that aggregated outcomes across specific forms of acceleration found that acceleration appeared to have a positive, moderate, and statistically significant impact on students’ academic achievement (g = 0.42).”