middle school reform

History about tracking and ability grouping in Stamford's middle schools

Before the 2009/10 school year four of Stamford's five middle schools (Cloonan, Dolan, Turn of River and Rippowam) used  a system called  tracking. This system seperated students in three to five ability groups, depending on the school, determined by overall test scores from 3 different tests. The fifth school, Scofield Magnet Middle School, grouped students regardless of ability level, with the exception of homogenous eighth-grade math classes for pre-algebra and algebra.

For the 2009/10 school year  the Stamford Public school system implemented a reform for their middle schools. Essentially, they eliminated tracking and replaced it with grouping (the individual placement of a student by achievement for different subjects). The current 3-5 different instruction levels (depending on school) were reduced to 2 different instructional levels: honors and college prepratory.

As some people noted, the origin of tracking was to enable faster (higher achieving) students to learn at a faster pace and higher levels as slower (lower achieving) students. This way a teacher could tailor instructions to the needs of the students in his or her group. This sounds good in theory. But in reality what happened was almost racial segregation in the class room. The higher achieving students tended to be mostly white and Asian, the lower achieving students African-American and Hispanic. Once they started on their tracks it seemed almost impossible to switch over to a higher track.

Reading between the lines, some of the reform seems to be geared towards closing the gap between different ability levels and creating a more mixed-ability learning environment where lower and higher-achiever will be grouped together in certain subject matters and regrouped in others.

The problem is that having only 2 different ability groups will not be enough in a school system as diverse as Stamford. The gap between the lowest and the highest achieving students is too big to be accommodated with only two groups. But the goal is not to advance all students further. The goal is that the bottom group catches up. As can bee seen in the statement from Bob Corcoran, President, GE Foundation at the April 28, 2009 Board of Education meeting:

"He thanked the Board, teachers, Dr. Starr, and administrators for using the money wisely and also tackling the tough task of trying to make the education system in Stamford equitable and focus on closing the achievement gap. He noted that although there has been great progress made nationally on scores of minority students, there has also been equal progress over the last 10 years on scores for white students across the country. The final result is that the achievement gap, the difference between the two groups, has not closed. Eliminating tracking is a necessary initiative to undertake if you are going to address the achievement gap, and it is important to provide that level of equitable opportunity."

Essentially the underlying purpose of the proposed heterogeneous grouping is not to challenge all children and provide equal educational opportunities for all students but to:

• close the achievement gap
• use higher achieving students as role models for lower achieving
• reduce disciplinary problems in mostly low achieving class rooms
• use higher achieving students to tutor lower achieving students

Some elementary schools that previously regrouped students by performance in math are going even further and are moving back to a "one classroom fits all model" as Newfield Elementary Schools Principal Arango initiated March 2nd, 2009.

Middle School Reform Part 2 -  or what the future may bring

It seems that the powers that be (BOE, teachers and some parents) are working towards a middle school system with no ability grouping whatsoever. Reading between the lines of Cindy Grafstein's (2008/09 senior co-president of the of the Stamford Parent Teacher Council Executive Board and current member of the Middle School Advisory Committee) letter to the Stamford Advocate on October 14th, 2009 she describes our previous system of ability grouping, our current system of flexible grouping with the goal being to have ultimately only heterogeneous groups. As she states herself, she is not an educator, nor has she read every study about the implications of ability vs. heterogeneous grouping. But she has read the conclusions of the people and organizations that support and promote heterogeneous grouping!

Also, on August 14th, 2009 the Advocate published a letter from Winnie Hamilton about the update on the current middle school reform. On the positive side they remarked how much more orderly and engaged the students were, and that discipline issues have been reduced. A feedback letter from the above mentioned Middle School Advisory Committee was published, too.
As one of the challenges listed in the letter was how to keep the "egos" in the honors group in check and one of the hope items was to move to an all heterogeneous grouping. One of the concerns reported was big class sizes in the honors group.

Cloonan Middle School Pilot Program

In November 2008, a Cambridge Education audit concluded that Cloonan's existing system contributes to the gap in test scores between white and Asian students, typically in the top two groups, and black and Hispanic students. The top two groups were much more likely to take part in hands-on or collaborative work, the report found.

Starting April 30, 2009 Cloonan Middle school ran a pilot program and grouped students of mixed abilities together in sixth-grade science and social studies until the end of the school year (June). Cloonan assembled groups based on learning styles, personality and other factors. Math and language arts groups did not change. Cloonan's pilot program differed from the proposed middle school reform (see top) that started in the fall of 2009.

There are students, parents and teacher that support heterogeneous grouping. But there are also a number of high achieving students who think that the new groups are easier, that they do not get challenged as much as before, and that the overall standards are lower now.

Additional Information

Here is a  link to an article about Stamford's middle school reform in the  New York Times published June 15, 2009.

In wake of the middle school reform a group of parents banded together under the name "Keep Ability Grouping in Stamford" and "Stamford Residents for Excellence in Education". They have a great website where they refute the validity of the research presented by the Middle School Reform Committee and the Stamford School Board. Anybody who would like to delve deeper into the issue check out their website at keepgrouping.org.

 

information about ability grouping

Pro ability grouping links

• Tracking

Article stating the pros and cons about tracking.

• Study about Efficiency costs of De-Tracking Secondary Schools

Paper on tracking cost efficiency of different nations

• Does secondary school tracking affect performance?

Research paper about  tracking length and test performance that suggest that the contribution of tracking to performance is positive and statistically significant: conditional on total years of schooling, one additional year spent in a track raises average performance by 3.3 to 3.4 percentage points, depending on the estimates.

• Summary of research about grouping

Research that contradicts heterogeneous grouping claims and supports ability grouping

 

Anti ability grouping links:

• Closing the achievement gap by de-tracking

Article that de-tracking can help close the achievement gap between minority and majority students

• School tracking harms millions

Study that shows that tracking doesn't limit opportunities for the top tenth or so of students but is particularly disastrous for students whose abilities fall in the middle range.

• Tracking in Schools - A thing of the Past

An article stating that tracking should be discontinued because it perpetuates the inequities of race, gender, and SES in our society.