----

##  Grouping Students for Instruction in Middle Schools. ERIC Digest.            

Teachers and schools use a variety of ways to group students for                instruction; most prevalent in middle level schools seems to be some            form of ability grouping. TURNING POINTS, the middle level reform               document of the Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development (1989),              recommended the elimination of all tracking that groups young                   adolescents with others of similar ability and referred to tracking             as one of the most divisive and damaging school practices in                    existence. Arguments once considered persuasive for grouping                    students by ability for instruction are losing their influence in               light of a growing body of evidence that the practice results in few            achievement benefits and several negative effects. This Digest                  discusses attitudes toward tracking and prevalent practices,                    summarizes recent research on ability grouping and tracking, and                provides suggestions for further research. TRACKINGThere is an            obvious conflict between research and practice in middle level                  schools where students are tracked for instruction. Proponents of               tracking argue that tracking helps schools meet the varying needs of            students, provides low-achieving students with the attention and                slower work pace that they require, allows high-achieving students              to be sufficiently challenged by faster-paced, more-demanding                   lessons, and permits teachers to provide different materials for                high achievers and more support to low achievers. 
Those opposed to            tracking are concerned about the perceived psychological damage to              low achievers, the slower pace and lower quality of instruction, the            more inexperienced or sometimes less-capable teachers assigned to               teach lower-ability students, the low expectations for student                  performance held by teachers, and the absence of strong behavioral              peer role models in classes for low-ability students. Many middle               level theorists believe that young adolescents cannot meet goals                related to their personal development through tracking (Carnegie                Council on Adolescent Development, 1989; Fuligni, Eccles, & Barber,             1995; Stevenson, 1992). They argue that young adolescents, naturally            inclined toward learning from their peers, need to be grouped with              individuals who are different from themselves. Additionally, young              adolescents are vulnerable as they struggle to establish a sense of             their own identity; tracking often creates negative perceptions of              lower-ability students that affect the students' self-perceptions.              Tracking, the literature says, has a negative effect on                         lower-tracked students' motivation and opportunities to learn as                well as on their life chances. It also perpetuates class and racial             inequities (Oakes, 1992). PREVALENT PRACTICESEpstein and Mac              Iver (1990), using data from the Johns Hopkins Center for Research              on Elementary and Middle Schools survey of 1,753 middle level                   schools, wrote that principals reported that over 40% of the middle             grade schools used some between-class grouping, and over 20%                    assigned students to all classes based on their ability.                        Wheelock (1992) reported that there is great variation in grouping              practices in all grade organizations of schools containing grade                seven. Whole-class ability grouping increased as students moved from            fifth through ninth grades (Epstein & Mac Iver, 1990; Lounsbury &               Clark, 1990), and in grades five and six, reading and mathematics               are the subjects in which students are most often grouped by                    ability. In grades seven through nine, the subjects are mathematics             and English; whereas science and social studies are subjects in                 which students are least often grouped by ability at all middle                 grade levels. A 1993 National Association of Secondary School                   Principals (NASSP) survey revealed that 82% of the responding middle            level schools reported that they used some degree of ability                    grouping (Valentine et al., 1993). 
Despite continuing the practice            of ability grouping, 36% of the schools in the 1993 NASSP survey                reported that they were considering eliminating ability grouping.               George and Shewey (1994) studied schools where serious attempts had             been made to implement middle school concepts and found that 85% of             the respondents selected a "mostly yes" response to the statement               that "flexible grouping strategies, primarily heterogeneous, have               contributed to long-term effects of our middle school program" (p.              75). RECENT RESEARCHIn 1993, Slavin authored a review that                summarized what is known about the achievement effects of ability               grouping in middle grades (6-9) and other approaches to                         accommodating student diversity. Drawing on his earlier work, he                re-asserted that "if the effects of ability grouping on student                 achievement are zero, then there is little reason to maintain the               practice" (p. 546). 
In Spear's 1994 qualitative study, he focused             on understanding how and why teachers think the way they do about               ability grouping and found that teachers who wish to retain ability             grouping are more subject centered, and those who wish to eliminate             ability grouping are more student centered; that teachers believe               that teaching is easier in ability grouped classes; and that parents            are important and powerful influences in decision making about                  ability grouping. 
Urdan, Midgley, and Wood (1995) worked                      collaboratively for three years with a middle school staff who                  wanted to examine and change their policies, procedures, and                    practices. The staff and researchers concluded that "tracking                   affects the way teachers think about instruction" (p. 25) and                   realized that ability grouping makes the entire school schedule less            flexible. They concluded that it was particularly important to                  provide in-service training for teachers in middle level schools to             help them teach in new and challenging ways. 
Roe and                          Radebaugh (1993) examined one middle school's elimination of                    tracking in mathematics, English, and reading classes. They found               that shared decision making is important to a successful transition             from tracking to de-tracking and that the teachers felt that                    heterogeneous grouping improved classroom culture. After the                    elimination of tracking, teachers reported positive social benefits,            positive behavioral implications, and less parental competition. The            teachers also felt that de-tracking had academic benefits due to the            social nature of learning and the strong influence of the                       adolescent's peer group. 
Hoffer (1992) examined whether ability               grouping during middle level schooling does act as a "sorting" event            with long-term consequences. Using mathematics class enrollment as              an indicator that placement during junior high school affected the              types of mathematics classes in which students enrolled in high                 school, Hoffer found that the main effects of ability level and                 ability grouping were significant; they also significantly                      interacted in affecting student performance. Hoffer found no                    positive long-term effects for low-ability students who were placed             in low-grouped mathematics classes. In fact, when compared to                   low-ability students in non-grouped classrooms, those placed in                 low-grouped class-rooms appeared to fare worse. In one study focused            on the effects of tracking in mathematics (Mason et al., 1992),                 researchers placed 34 average-achieving eighth-graders into                     high-track pre-algebra classes with their high-achieving peers.                 Several of the average-achieving students did better than their                 high-achieving classmates and "took substantially more advanced                 mathematics during high school" (p. 597). The high-achieving                    students "suffered no decrease in computation or problem-solving                achievement" (p. 595), and they scored higher in concepts than their            cohort peer groups from previous years. The average-achieving                   students increased their achievement in concept development and did             just as well in computation and problem solving as did their                    previous "average" classmates. CONCLUSIONTheorists and                    researchers suggest the need for much further research on the topics            of ability grouping and tracking. Specifically, we need long-term               studies that consider the effects of ability grouping on children's             development (Fuligni, Eccles, & Barber, 1995); give systematic                  accounts of particular schools' efforts to de-track and                         reorganize (Oakes, 1992; Slavin, 1993); provide documentation of                promising alternatives to tracking (Roe & Radebaugh, 1993; Wheelock,            1992); and discuss ways to help low-achieving students keep up with             more demanding content and higher expectations (Slavin, 1993). In               short, we need to provide what Oakes (1992) called the "technology              of tracking," useful guidance to establishing school cultures where             tracking no longer makes sense. ------------ADAPTED FROM:                 MILLS, REBECCA. (1997). GROUPING STUDENTS FOR INSTRUCTION: ISSUES OF            EQUITY AND EFFECTIVENESS. IN JUDITH L. IRVIN (ED.), What current                research says to the middle level practitioner (PP. 87-94).                     Columbus, OH: National Middle School                                            Association. REFERENCESCarnegie Council on Adolescent                     Development. (1989). TURNING POINTS: PREPARING AMERICAN YOUTH FOR               THE 21ST CENTURY. New York: Carnegie Corporation. ED 312                        322. 
Epstein, J. L., & Mac Iver, D. J. (1990). EDUCATION IN THE               MIDDLE GRADES: NATIONAL PRACTICES AND TRENDS. Columbus, OH: National            Middle School Association. 
Fuligni, A. J., Eccles, J. S., &                   Barber, B. L. (1995). The long-term effects of seventh-grade ability            grouping in mathematics. JOURNAL OF EARLY ADOLESCENCE, 15(1), 58-89.            EJ 520 357. 
George, P. S., & Shewey, K. (1994). NEW EVIDENCE FOR              THE MIDDLE SCHOOL. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.            ED 396 839. 
Hoffer, T. B. (1992). Middle school ability grouping              and student achievement in science and mathematics. EDUCATIONAL                 EVALUATION AND POLICY ANALYSIS, 14(3), 205-227. EJ 453                          830. 
Lounsbury, J. H., & Clark, D. C. (1990). INSIDE GRADE EIGHT:             FROM APATHY TO EXCITEMENT. Reston, VA: National Association of                  Secondary School Principals. ED 327 318. 
Mason, D. A., Schroeter,             D. D., Combs, R. K., & Washington, K. (1992). Assigning                         average-achieving eighth graders to advanced mathematics classes in             urban junior high. ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL, 92(5), 587-599. EJ 447            688. 
Oakes, J. (1992). Can tracking research inform practice?                 Technical, normative, and political considerations. EDUCATIONAL                 RESEARCHER, 21(4), 12-21. EJ 448 066. 
Roe, M. F., & Radebaugh,                M. (1993). One middle school's elimination of homogeneous grouping:             A qualitative study. RESEARCH IN MIDDLE LEVEL EDUCATION, 17(1),                 47-62. 
Slavin, R. E. (1993). Ability grouping in middle grades:               Achievement effects and alternatives. ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL,                93(5), 535-552. EJ 464 542. 
Spear, R. C. (1994). Teacher                      perceptions of ability grouping practices in middle level schools.              RESEARCH IN MIDDLE LEVEL EDUCATION, 18(1), 117-130. EJ 501                      951. 
Stevenson, C. (1992). TEACHING TEN TO FOURTEEN YEAR OLDS. New            York: Longman. ED 399 260. 
Urdan, T., Midgley, C., & Wood,                    S. (1995). Special issues in reforming middle level schools. JOURNAL            OF EARLY ADOLESCENCE, 15(1), 9-37. EJ 520 355. 
Valentine, J.,                 Clark, D. D., Irvin, J. L., Keefe, J. W., & Melton, G. (1993).                  LEADERSHIP IN MIDDLE LEVEL EDUCATION: A NATIONAL SURVEY OF MIDDLE               LEVEL LEADERS AND SCHOOLS (Vol. 1). Reston, VA: National Association            of Secondary School Principals. ED 356 535. 
Wheelock, A. (1992).              CROSS THE TRACKS: HOW 'UNTRACKING' CAN SAVE AMERICA'S SCHOOLS. New              York: New Press. ED 353 349. 
----- 
This publication was funded              by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S.                     Department of Education, under contract no. RR93002007. The opinions            expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the positions or            policies of OERI. ERIC Digests are in the public domain and may be              freely reproduced.                                                           **Title:** Grouping Students for Instruction in Middle Schools. ERIC Digest.            **Document Type:** Information Analyses---ERIC Information Analysis Products (IAPs) (071); Information Analyses---ERIC Digests (Selected) in Full Text (073); **Descriptors:**  Ability Grouping, Academic Ability,  Academic Achievement,  Class              Organization, Elementary Education, Elementary School Students,                  Grouping (Instructional Purposes), Heterogeneous Grouping,                     Intermediate Grades, Junior High School Students, Junior High                   Schools,  Middle School Students,  Middle Schools, Outcomes of                  Education, School Effectiveness, Student Characteristics, Teacher               Attitudes,  Track System (Education)                                         **Identifiers:** ERIC Digests                                                                 
###
[Return to ERIC Digest Search Page]