For a while now I have been wondering about the language we use as we group our students. Not so much the labels we use but the method of grouping used. For guided reading, you are supposed to group students at their reading level, which then in turn creates ability groups. This is considered a great thing for teaching students at their targeted levels. And I tend to agree, I do some whole class book discussions but for deeper teaching of reading strategies I like to meet with smaller groups to discuss pertinent strategies with books they can understand. And that according the guided reading is what I should be doing; placing students with similar leveled students or similar skilled students so that they can work at the same task.
For math you can do flex grouping, also based somewhat on ability as determined through pre-tests and personalties, and this too is totally permissible. It allows for smaller groups and different pacing of curriculum, as well as remediation and enrichment.
Yet, if you take away the gentler names and introduce the word "tracking", then both of these scenarios lose their luster. So I wonder, out loud as usual, is ability grouping really just tracking with a kinder name?
If we ability group in elementary are we setting students on their path for the rest of their academic career or are we indeed teaching them within their zone of proximal development and then spurring further growth? Are we able to group students in such a way that all are challenged at their level without breaking them apart? Can we effectively meet every single child's needs within in a classroom setting during our instruction time without identifying which skill they specifically need to work on and them grouping them to work on them?
I would love your thoughts on this.
For math you can do flex grouping, also based somewhat on ability as determined through pre-tests and personalties, and this too is totally permissible. It allows for smaller groups and different pacing of curriculum, as well as remediation and enrichment.
Yet, if you take away the gentler names and introduce the word "tracking", then both of these scenarios lose their luster. So I wonder, out loud as usual, is ability grouping really just tracking with a kinder name?
If we ability group in elementary are we setting students on their path for the rest of their academic career or are we indeed teaching them within their zone of proximal development and then spurring further growth? Are we able to group students in such a way that all are challenged at their level without breaking them apart? Can we effectively meet every single child's needs within in a classroom setting during our instruction time without identifying which skill they specifically need to work on and them grouping them to work on them?
I would love your thoughts on this.