• Home
  • About
  • Blog
  • Contact

Nancy Bailey's Education Website

Revive, Rally and Recover Public Schools

  • Activism
    • Anti-Charter Schools
    • Anti-Common Core State Standards
    • Anti-Corporatization of Schools
    • Anti-High-Stakes Testing
    • State Action Groups
    • School Buildings
  • School Curriculum
    • General Education
    • Educators
    • Parents
    • Reading
    • Writing
    • Math
    • Science
    • Social Studies
    • The Arts
    • Technology
    • Behavior
    • Diversity
    • English Language Learners
    • Special Education
      • Autism
      • Emotional and Behavioral Disabilities
      • Learning Disabilities
      • Developmental Disabilities
      • Gifted
      • Other
    • Early Childhood Education
    • Elementary School
    • Middle School
    • High School
    • Student Careers
  • Other Countries
    • England
    • Finland
    • Australia
    • New Zealand
    • Canada

Common Core and Ability Grouping—Ignoring Critical Questions

January 5, 2014 By Nancy Bailey 3 Comments

Post Views: 323

Common Core does not honestly tackle a problem that should be front and center in our public schools. How do we address ability grouping? Should students with learning disabilities be educated separately or in the regular class? Do autistic children learn faster mainstreamed or with specialized help in a self-contained classroom or separate school? Are gifted kids better off learning with other gifted kids?

How should students be grouped when they arrive at the schoolhouse door?

Even students not in special education are different. Should we track students or detrack? How does a regular teacher manage so many academic, social, and cultural needs?

With Common Core, required standards are held in front of all students like a carrot, to master any way they can. The trouble is, if students can’t reach the carrot, they go hungry!

Questions surrounding how students are grouped are not easily answered, and with Common Core State Standards (CCSS) they aren’t really addressed.  Common Core advocates Universal Design for Learning (UDL), a murky plan to offer students a variety of methods (assistive technology) to get to the standards. There is no proof this works, or that it is being implemented, especially without controlling class size.

Yet, one could argue that how children are grouped in school is one of the most difficult questions surrounding education. But how do you discuss helping unlike students work together when Common Core wants everyone to be alike and reach the same goals? How do you address the big questions concerning differences when the developers of CCSS end all questions?

Before Common Core became the law of the land, public schools tried, and might still try in some places, to uniquely arrange classes to help students learn. Looping, giving young students the same teacher for two years, and multi-age grouping are two examples that have demonstrated some success.

But CCSS, offers the same pablum to all children without really considering differences. And if you mention individualization beware! There most likely will be a chain charter school waiting around the corner, set up with carrels of computers. CEOs and politicians like to tout individualization through technology. But without computers, most aren’t so worried about class sizes of 40.

Joanne Yatvin’s reply to my post the other day about the way her school once handled gifted students, got me to thinking about ability grouping. Perhaps the answer is that there are different solutions depending on the school, the school district, and the characteristics and learning needs of the student population. Grouping might change from year to year.

But serious consideration of ability grouping is not easy. It takes forethought and time for planning. It requires serious consideration by people who know and are vested in the lives of children and the community. It might also require an instructional designer.

Small classes, pull-out resource classes, online, teacher-led, remedial, special ed. areas including gifted centers. You could also include addressing the cultural needs unique to the location of the school. You certainly should consider poverty. Mix it up a bit and make an attempt to drop the labels. But always…always…reflect on the students who will arrive at school ready to lean.

It’s just a thought.

But with Common Core there is no debate…no real consideration about ability grouping. You are either on the right road to success, or you are not. With Common Core it is about survival of the fittest….

Filed Under: Common Core, Special Education Tagged With: ability grouping, Autism, class size, Common Core, detracking, gifted, learning disabilities, mainstreamed, self-contained classroom, separate school, social and cultural needs, tracking

Comments

  1. Meg says

    January 5, 2014 at 2:10 pm

    Research shows that gifted kids need to be together. They push and challenge each other. Sadly Common Core is forcing schools to use gifted students as peer tutors and teacher helpers rather than pushing them forward. School scores are based more in bringing the bottom up than helping the top soar. We need to bring back the days when our best and brightest were taught together all day long. The future of this country rests on those young minds.

    Reply
  2. Nancy Bailey says

    January 5, 2014 at 2:36 pm

    I used to lean towards inclusion, but class sizes are huge and I’ve seen schools with few if any real services for gifted students. So my thinking on this has changed in general. I tend to agree with you, Meg. Gifted students can find other outlets to mingle socially with a variety of students even in school.

    That said, I think Joanne Yatvin made a compelling point the other day. If a school works out the glitches some gifted students might do well mainstreamed.

    I’m going to go out on a limb and say might it not be the level of giftedness that determines a self-contained gifted class?

    The point I wanted to make with this post was professionals should learn who is coming to their schools and work on a plan for serving them.

    Certainly there is a debate here. But with CC there is none. My second point and yours as well.

    Last, the peer tutoring thing really is upsetting. Gifted students are denied programming than used. I wonder if their parents know!

    Thanks again Meg for a great reply.

    Reply
  3. Kimberly Fields says

    February 20, 2014 at 10:04 pm

    Interestingly I brought up the idea of considering ability grouping as we construct classes for the next school year. I was actually suggesting that classes be composed of ranges of abilities.i made a crude sketch for L-M, M-H, M-G, and immediately there were cries of, “that’s illegal” For example, having text level assessment scores ranging from 3-18 in one second grade class, and ranging from 10- 24 in another class, and 24-36 in another class, is just shortening the range and making it more manageable for the instructor. Furthermore, I have found the greater the achievement gap is between students the more the lower performers start to shut down and defer to the higher kids. Likewise, the higher ones start to believe they are brilliant, when in fact they may just be average or slightly above. This year the TLA range in my 2nd grade class of 18 children was 3-32 at the beginning of the year. Now it is 8-36. I don’t use students to tutor others. They are all children and come to school to be student learners, not student teachers! Can someone explain this to the brilliant people who are designing curriculum and assessments for students that keep them looking like failures year after year because they never get the time from a dedicated teacher to really help them to catch up, because the teacher is torn into so many different directions?

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

front cover

An education glossary with an attitude.

Buy Now

front cover

Do we really want an America where we no longer own our public schools?

Buy Now

front cover

This book says “no” to the reforms that fail, and challenges Americans to address the real student needs that will fix public schools and make America strong.

Buy Now

Follow me!

Enter your email address to subscribe to my blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Connect With Me!

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Nancy E. Bailey Follow

Author, Ph.D. Ed. Leadership and longtime teacher, Blogging for Kids, Teachers, Parents & Democratic Public Schools.

NancyEBailey1
Retweet on Twitter Nancy E. Bailey Retweeted
helenproulx2 Helen Proulx @helenproulx2 ·
11h

Worrisome indeed. And read-alouds are not enough. How might we create opportunities for rich & varied experiences with texts from the start? How can we be sure that Ss are encouraged & not limited by instruction? https://twitter.com/NancyEBailey1/status/1640105213276180480

Nancy E. Bailey @NancyEBailey1

Science of Reading camp never discusses the importance of picture books. How much time do children get to explore them? How often are they read to for enjoyment? This is worrisome. https://nancyebailey.com/2023/03/26/the-science-of-reading-and-the-rejection-of-picture-books/

Reply on Twitter 1640184549454802949 Retweet on Twitter 1640184549454802949 1 Like on Twitter 1640184549454802949 6 Twitter 1640184549454802949
Retweet on Twitter Nancy E. Bailey Retweeted
beebryhte Belinda Whyte @beebryhte ·
15h

https://nancyebailey.com/2023/03/26/the-science-of-reading-and-the-rejection-of-picture-books/
Not sure I could agree more...thanks @NancyEBailey1

Reply on Twitter 1640122924026978304 Retweet on Twitter 1640122924026978304 3 Like on Twitter 1640122924026978304 6 Twitter 1640122924026978304
Retweet on Twitter Nancy E. Bailey Retweeted
nancyebailey1 Nancy E. Bailey @nancyebailey1 ·
1 Mar

Unstructured play has been driven out of early childhood classrooms for years! Goals are to micromanage everything a child does. Few seem to connect play's importance to learning & mental health, or they don't care if schools fail. https://twitter.com/Cabal_Educator/status/1630938079170109440

Kimberly Blodgett @Cabal_Educator

Let them play!

Reply on Twitter 1630961018854621185 Retweet on Twitter 1630961018854621185 8 Like on Twitter 1630961018854621185 14 Twitter 1630961018854621185
nancyebailey1 Nancy E. Bailey @nancyebailey1 ·
16h

Science of Reading camp never discusses the importance of picture books. How much time do children get to explore them? How often are they read to for enjoyment? This is worrisome. https://nancyebailey.com/2023/03/26/the-science-of-reading-and-the-rejection-of-picture-books/

Reply on Twitter 1640105213276180480 Retweet on Twitter 1640105213276180480 16 Like on Twitter 1640105213276180480 54 Twitter 1640105213276180480
Retweet on Twitter Nancy E. Bailey Retweeted
nancyebailey1 Nancy E. Bailey @nancyebailey1 ·
25 Mar

@BetsyDeVos So much research shows that 3rd gr retention is bad for students it's hard to believe you think this is fine. There are many alternatives. https://nancyebailey.com/2017/10/09/force-flunk-destroying-a-childs-love-of-reading-and-their-life/

Reply on Twitter 1639663340321492995 Retweet on Twitter 1639663340321492995 3 Like on Twitter 1639663340321492995 17 Twitter 1639663340321492995
Load More

Archives

Tag Cloud

Arne Duncan Autism Betsy DeVos Bill Gates charter schools class size Common Core Common Core covid-19 disabilities dyslexia early childhood education Education Secretary Betsy DeVos Florida high-stakes testing kindergarten learning disabilities Online Learning parents Personalized Learning phonics preschool private schools privatization public schools reading recess retention School Choice school libraries School Privatization school reform schools Social Emotional Learning special education students Students with Disabilities Teacher Preparation teachers Teach for America teaching Technology testing the arts vouchers

Copyright © 2023 Nancy E. Bailey · Website powered by Standing Pine Media.