Erickson on Ability-grouping / curriculum tracking

Mann for School Board | home

DFL K-12 Education Agenda | J. Erickson -Testing, inputs, and outcomes | Erickson on Ability-grouping / curriculum tracking | Re: Mr. Mann's Statements

Subj: J Erickson on Ability grouping / curriculum tracking

Date: 6/19/2002 12:46:06 AM Central Daylight Time

From: Socialist2001

To: mpls@mnforum.org

I am disappointed by Joseph Erickson's comment about ability grouping.

Forgive my crude translation of JE's comment from professorese to plain English:

JE approves of 'ability grouping' on educational grounds if the groupings are based

on observable differences in mastery of a particular subject.

Now, you might wonder why JE says ability grouping may be useful in math

and not in the physical sciences, reading, writing, social studies and so forth.

I think it is safe to say that it is generally best to learn certain concepts and

skills in a certain order. For example a certain level of mastery in adding is

desirable before a student concentrates on learning how to multiply numbers.

A student should be able to recognize at least a small set of letters before

concentrating on how to sound out words. And it is best for a student to learn

something about atomic theory and chemical reactions before studying cell

structure. If ability-grouping is useful in math, it should also be useful in other

basic subjects.

However, it doesn't necessarily follow that 15 students and a teacher will be more productively engaged in learning activities if divided into 2 or more curriculum tracks. Students in millions of classrooms around the world move on together from one skill or concept to another on a common curriculum track despite big differences in mastery levels and without holding back the more advanced learners or losing the least advanced students. That's because the teacher and students in a one-track classroom can use their time more effectively than if divided into ability-groups. That's why nearly the entire population of students at some schools and school districts in the Twin Cities area can be on the same college-bound academic track as the small minority of kids who are assigned to the gifted and talented programs in Minneapolis.

-Doug Mann

Minneapolis School Board Candidate

http://educationright.tripod.com

Joseph Erickson writes,

"Ability Grouping-

In general, I am against ability groupings merely on equity grounds. It

creates haves and have-nots and will stigmatize children, even at early

ages. That being said, there are specific situations in which grouping of a

sort may be useful. For example, research suggests that grouping students by

mastery level assists students in making smooth progress through various

levels of math work by focusing instruction on work that will be

productively engaging for learners at various levels of complexity. Of all

the basic subjects, math might be the only area in which grouping of one

sort or another may be justified.

"There may be other specific situations in which ability grouping is

justified, but the justification should be empirically based, not merely for

efficiency or out of habit."


	Mann for School Board \| home DFL K-12 Education Agenda \| J. Erickson -Testing, inputs, and outcomes \| Erickson on Ability-grouping / curriculum tracking \| Re: Mr. Mann's Statements Erickson on Ability-grouping / curriculum tracking Subj: J Erickson on Ability grouping / curriculum tracking Date: 6/19/2002 12:46:06 AM Central Daylight Time From: Socialist2001 To: mpls@mnforum.org I am disappointed by Joseph Erickson's comment about ability grouping. Forgive my crude translation of JE's comment from professorese to plain English: JE approves of 'ability grouping' on educational grounds if the groupings are based on observable differences in mastery of a particular subject. Now, you might wonder why JE says ability grouping may be useful in math and not in the physical sciences, reading, writing, social studies and so forth. I think it is safe to say that it is generally best to learn certain concepts and skills in a certain order. For example a certain level of mastery in adding is desirable before a student concentrates on learning how to multiply numbers. A student should be able to recognize at least a small set of letters before concentrating on how to sound out words. And it is best for a student to learn something about atomic theory and chemical reactions before studying cell structure. If ability-grouping is useful in math, it should also be useful in other basic subjects. However, it doesn't necessarily follow that 15 students and a teacher will be more productively engaged in learning activities if divided into 2 or more curriculum tracks. Students in millions of classrooms around the world move on together from one skill or concept to another on a common curriculum track despite big differences in mastery levels and without holding back the more advanced learners or losing the least advanced students. That's because the teacher and students in a one-track classroom can use their time more effectively than if divided into ability-groups. That's why nearly the entire population of students at some schools and school districts in the Twin Cities area can be on the same college-bound academic track as the small minority of kids who are assigned to the gifted and talented programs in Minneapolis. -Doug Mann Minneapolis School Board Candidate http://educationright.tripod.com Joseph Erickson writes, "Ability Grouping- In general, I am against ability groupings merely on equity grounds. It creates haves and have-nots and will stigmatize children, even at early ages. That being said, there are specific situations in which grouping of a sort may be useful. For example, research suggests that grouping students by mastery level assists students in making smooth progress through various levels of math work by focusing instruction on work that will be productively engaging for learners at various levels of complexity. Of all the basic subjects, math might be the only area in which grouping of one sort or another may be justified. "There may be other specific situations in which ability grouping is justified, but the justification should be empirically based, not merely for efficiency or out of habit."