The Gay Uncle read a report the other day about how some holdout school districts are giving up their strict tracking systems–in which children are graded and then grouped by ability throughout their tenure in a school–and all he can say is, Finally. While he sees some value in programs at the upper grade levels that give high achieving students the opportunity to push themselves further, he has always been a firm believer in mixed-ability grouping for younger kids. Why? Well, for a few core reasons. First, in these environments, kids learn from one another–and this learning isn’t just one-sided with the Eagles teaching the Pigeons (though this is part of it). Think about how much more deeply a concept has to make sense for you in order to explain it to someone who doesn’t get it. Think about how much more excited you get about a topic you understand when you share that understanding with someone who connects to it as well, especially someone who connects for the first time. Think about how good and smart you feel when someone else lights up with the comprehension of something you’ve described for them. Second, think how much more readily able you are to take in information when it comes informally from a peer or colleague than from a supervisor. Kids feel this as well. Sometimes content that falls flat when presented by the teacher becomes enlivened, or a part of a social exchange, when delivered or moderated by another kid. Third, kids have all sorts of different forms of intelligence, and segregating kids based solely on one kind limits their exposure to, and potential to build skills in, others. Thinking skills, even higher order thinking skills, are only one of the things we hope kids derive from attending school. We also want them to be well rounded people, to learn to engage with the arts, to become adequate social beings, to gain empathy and sympathy and other emotional knowledge, to appreciate and embrace difference, to gain a sense of humor, to learn the value of physical activity. A mixed “ability” grouping is much more likely to contain kids with strengths in all of these areas than one tracked by a sole variable.
Finally–and most importantly–think how much more successful this country could be at fulfilling its promise if everyone was given the opportunity to achieve, not just the people who already had a leg up. Isn’t this the whole point of “America”? Gunc has said it over and again, in a country like ours where the individual is king, schools are anathema. Schools are about the collective good: about working together to balance the needs of the individual with the larger goals of the good of the group and of society. A quality school will make sure that each child is attended to within this context, bet even the best schools by necessity and design will ask parents, kids, and teachers to sacrifice some of their individual desires for the benefit of the whole. Parents often see this solely as a deficit. But education exists not simply to serve (your child’s) individual needs, but also to help foster group achievement, as well as to develop practices that are key to the smooth functioning of civil society.
I appreciate your kibbutz-inspired social sentimentality, but where does my child go to develop a network of like-minded, wealthy, elites? Jeez.
@Tom Gratch
College
I usually completely agree with you, but on this one I have to respectfully disagree: it is all well and good in theory, but in practice, academic intervention is needed for the kids who are outliers — every child deserves to learn everyday and having been the one in the group charged with “teaching” what I knew to the others, I have to say, resentment of that position mounts fairly quickly if one is repeatedly cast in the surrogate teacher role. Curriculum differentiation is not consistent or well managed in the elementary grades, even at our well respected General Ed public, so the individual’s education, in this case, was sacrificed for the ideal of a greater good — it made me hate school, a place where I was often bored with the excruciatingly slow pace and repetition, to the point where I became psychosomatically ill to avoid it. Once in a “tracked” class, I never had one of those headaches or stomachaches again and finally enjoyed being a student. It may work for others, but having the option to track literally saved me from checking out totally. Many kids who are bright, quick learners become “at risk” well before the opportunity to excel presents in middle or high school tracking — as a high school teacher, I saw many who were ready to drop out. Not challenging young kids creates underachievers of some of the smartest kids. My own son was acting out in class until we tracked him: now, he loves school and is so excited to learn. The well meaning Gen Ed teacher did not know how to differentiate well for him and he basically attended school solely for socialization for one year — a valuable learning experience, but learning how to daydream instead of fidget is not my idea of a good strategy. He was checking out already at age 5! I am grateful for the teacher who urged me to track him; it may be out of fashion or seem undemocratic, but for my child and for me, it was the best choice we could make.