You have written (above) that teachers use tracking instead of individualizing instruction because they are lazy, and yet you now claim that individualizing instruction is easy, something anyone “who can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time” can do. If it’s that easy, then it’s hard to argue that teachers don’t do it simply because they are lazy, is it not? There must be other reasons many teachers prefer homogeneous grouping. Teachers don’t reject an approach (as you say they do) that is easy to do without reason.

You also suggest that Ben needs to read more about individualized instruction. I have read a great deal about it, both pro & con, and almost everything I read about it, including pieces by authors who advocate its use, suggests that it is very, very hard to do effectively. I’m curious what research you would suggest those who believe individualized instruction is difficult should read?

It’s my belief that any teacher who can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time can individualize instruction for their classroom – if they so desire. And I honestly don’t believe they have to be a master teacher. I was not a master teacher my second year in the classroom (or any year for that matter) but I saw the need for this approach, believed it could be done, and that it would be enormously beneficial to my students. I believed in it.

Ben,

You need to read up on the subject much more before you’re ready to dismiss it. It really does work. I did it for 33 years, quite successfully. It’s largest benefit; done correctly, it allows kids to traverses comfortably through school. Again, no one should be bored if this approach is done correctly and no one should be overwhelmed. All kids are where they should be sequentially based on what they’ve shown they’ve learned.

Yes, I hear DI spoken about as the miracle cure for the chronic problem of wildly diverse ability levels within a grade-level. But who the heck knows how to do it well? Show me. And is there any evidence that those who SEEM to be doing it well are actually providing a good education? Any evidence that a differentiated lesson about the Enlightenment results in more net learning about the Enlightenment than a well-prepared, engaging undifferentiated lesson?

From what I’ve been able to gather, DI is essentially tracking within a classroom in which the teacher has been banished to the sidelines. You give each group a text and a task; circulate around to make sure everyone is on task. I suppose a master teacher could manage to weave in some direct instruction at the board (though how to do this without distracting the other groups is unclear.) I find managing behavior when kids are in groups to be harder than during whole class instruction, and even harder when each group is doing something different. Planning in the DI classroom seems much more complicated that for an undifferentiated classroom. In short, DI seems HARD –probably impossible to be done well on a wide-spread basis –and for what? Does it really work?

It seems to me that huge ability differences within a given classroom could be significantly reduced with a Core Knowledge curriculum. If my 7th graders had ALL undergone a rigorous, meaty K-6 curriculum, the REALLY low students in my classes would probably be merely low, or even close to grade level. But asking mere mortal teachers to single-handedly overcome this systemic problem –and natural and familial differences –with daily gold-medal-caliber teaching gymnastics –is folly.

The ideas are there, but we cannot talk about them or about their impact.

We’re all biased toward (perhaps hostages of) our own experiences. Mine tells me that mixed ability grouping benefitted the lower achievers and seriously disadvantaged the high achievers and potential high achievers. Yes, I know the homilies about differentiated instruction. I’m just not sure I buy them. I’m a reasonably smart guy and I was a seriously dedicated teacher. That doesn’t mean I was any damn good, but I have to wonder if mixed ability grouping can be effective for anyone but a master teacher. And as best as I can tell, there are millions of classrooms that lack master teachers. Thus any system that relies on master teachers seriously shortchanges children.

We all have our personal obsessions in education. Mine happens to be high-achieving (and potentially high achieving) children in bad urban schools. I think they tend to be the most disadvantaged by our insistence on mixed ability grouping. In settings where most every kid is high needs, the ones who are at above grade level tend to be left to their own devices. They do just fine based on the crude metrics we have, but compared to similarly talented but more fortunate kids, like their peers in Palo Alto, they’re left at the starting gate. I think we have much to answer for in that regard.

I accept the abuses of tracking; its come by its bad reputation honestly and has become a loaded word. Say “tracking” and some people seem to hear “eugenics.” I agree there is no excuse for labeling a child at an early age and setting his or her destiny. But neither is there an excuse for denying every child his academic manifest destiny. And I think that’s pretty much what we do every day by insisting on mixed ability classrooms. Again, I understand that it works for some, perhaps even many teachers. I just don’t happen to know any.

Hope you get to read this. I noticed this thread has essentially been terminated. Too bad. It’s a compelling topic. Robert’s not a big fan of this topic. Don’t think he’s threatened by it, it appears to be simply uncomfortable for him for some reason. Yes Robert, I know you’re out there.

I employed ad hoc skill groups. I started everyone at the same point in September in each subject. If they showed me they had learned the skill/concept, I moved them ahead, individually. If they were unable to demonstrate mastery, I kept them on that skill/concept for additional time. There were no designated groups. However, groups formed themselves as kids moved ahead in the sequence or remained where they were for additional work toward mastery. Kids moved ahead as they were able to show they mastered the existing skill. It worked and kids and parents loved it. They knew where they stood. They knew what they had to do and what came next in the sequence. It empowered them. No one was bored and no one was overwhelmed. They were all challenged at their instructional level in each subject every day.

So I guess the answer to your post is no, we don’t agree on the grouping/tracking issue. Linda has a pretty good handle on it. The difference is the “group” part. For whatever it’s worth, my class was NOT operated under differentiated instruction – too cumbersome and bureaucratic. My class was an individualized classroom, much more of a meritocracy and that’s what kids and parents loved about it.

Translation: I’ve had fifth graders capable of doing Calculus who were only doing equations with three unknowns on each side, while at the same time having other 5th graders who were overlooked in K-4th grade mixed ability classes who deserve to have more attention, but alas will never actually perform at grade level because their teachers are to busy trying to differentiate or to really dedicate the intense one on one instruction that they need.

In most schools that’s called “third grade.”

And what is it called if you present multiplication to everyone, whether they’re still learning their numbers or learned to multiply last year?