This paper argues that for most of the 20th century, schools
have constructed multiple categories of "unlikeness" or unlike
ability, and that these categories were created or soon appropriated to mean
"children who cannot learn together." Important evidence collected
throughout the century, but most especially in the past twenty years, reveals
that school categories favoring children's likeness, rather than their
"unlikeness" promise to improve educational fairness and the
country's educational quality. Ability grouping has been bolstered by the
argument that equal opportunity in a
democracy requires schools to provide each student access to the kind of
knowledge and skills that best suit his or her abilities and likely adult
lives. To make the argument more palatable in a culture that, rhetorically at
least, values classless and colorblind policies, educators and policymakers
have reified categorical differences among people. So, in contemporary schools,
there are "gifted" students, "average" students, "Title
I" students, "learning disabled" students, and so on, in order
to justify the different access and opportunities students receive. Assessment
and evaluation technology permits schools to categorize, compare, rank, and
assign value to students' abilities and achievements in relationship to one
another (as well as to students in other schools, states, and countries—past
and present). Homogeneous grouping began in earnest early in the 20th century.
It matched the prevailing IQ conception of intelligence, behavioral theories of
learning, a transmission and training model of teaching, and the factory model
of school organization. It fit with schools' role in maintaining a social and
economic order in which those with power and privilege routinely pass on their advantages
to their children. Homogeneous grouping
embodied a belief that permeated schooling during the 20th century—that we
understand most about students when we look at their differences, and the more
differences that can be identified, the better our understanding and teaching.
Homogeneous grouping provided policymakers and educators a way to
"solve" an array of problems attributed to the growing diversity of
students. New immigrants needed to learn English and American ways. Factories
needed trained workers. Urban youth needed supervision. And schools needed to
continue their traditional role of providing high-status knowledge to prepare some students for the professions.
Policymakers defined equal educational opportunity as giving all students the
chance to prepare for largely predetermined and certainly different adult
lives. Concurrently, two phenomena shaped a uniquely American definition of
democratic schooling: (1) universal schooling would give all students some
access to knowledge; (2) IQ could justify differentiated access to knowledge as a hallmark of democratic fairness. While
most current grouping practices don't rely on IQ—at least exclusively—the early
dependence upon it set a pattern that continues today. Standardized achievement
tests, strikingly similar to IQ tests, play an important role in dividing
students into ability groups and qualifying students for compensatory education
programs; standardized language proficiency tests determine which class
"level" is appropriate for limited English students. In conjunction
with other measures, IQ remains central in the identification of gifted and
cognitively disabled students.
have constructed multiple categories of "unlikeness" or unlike
ability, and that these categories were created or soon appropriated to mean
"children who cannot learn together." Important evidence collected
throughout the century, but most especially in the past twenty years, reveals
that school categories favoring children's likeness, rather than their
"unlikeness" promise to improve educational fairness and the
country's educational quality. Ability grouping has been bolstered by the
argument that equal opportunity in a
democracy requires schools to provide each student access to the kind of
knowledge and skills that best suit his or her abilities and likely adult
lives. To make the argument more palatable in a culture that, rhetorically at
least, values classless and colorblind policies, educators and policymakers
have reified categorical differences among people. So, in contemporary schools,
there are "gifted" students, "average" students, "Title
I" students, "learning disabled" students, and so on, in order
to justify the different access and opportunities students receive. Assessment
and evaluation technology permits schools to categorize, compare, rank, and
assign value to students' abilities and achievements in relationship to one
another (as well as to students in other schools, states, and countries—past
and present). Homogeneous grouping began in earnest early in the 20th century.
It matched the prevailing IQ conception of intelligence, behavioral theories of
learning, a transmission and training model of teaching, and the factory model
of school organization. It fit with schools' role in maintaining a social and
economic order in which those with power and privilege routinely pass on their advantages
to their children. Homogeneous grouping
embodied a belief that permeated schooling during the 20th century—that we
understand most about students when we look at their differences, and the more
differences that can be identified, the better our understanding and teaching.
Homogeneous grouping provided policymakers and educators a way to
"solve" an array of problems attributed to the growing diversity of
students. New immigrants needed to learn English and American ways. Factories
needed trained workers. Urban youth needed supervision. And schools needed to
continue their traditional role of providing high-status knowledge to prepare some students for the professions.
Policymakers defined equal educational opportunity as giving all students the
chance to prepare for largely predetermined and certainly different adult
lives. Concurrently, two phenomena shaped a uniquely American definition of
democratic schooling: (1) universal schooling would give all students some
access to knowledge; (2) IQ could justify differentiated access to knowledge as a hallmark of democratic fairness. While
most current grouping practices don't rely on IQ—at least exclusively—the early
dependence upon it set a pattern that continues today. Standardized achievement
tests, strikingly similar to IQ tests, play an important role in dividing
students into ability groups and qualifying students for compensatory education
programs; standardized language proficiency tests determine which class
"level" is appropriate for limited English students. In conjunction
with other measures, IQ remains central in the identification of gifted and
cognitively disabled students.
Over the course of the 20th century, compulsory education
laws and the necessity of a highschool diploma drew more and more students to
school—even those previously considered uneducable. States and local school
systems developed an array of special programs for students who, in earlier
times, simply would not have been in school. By the 1960s, the federal
government had turned to special categorical programs as its principal way to
guarantee education for all American students. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA) provided categorical funding
for "educationally deprived" students. Lau et. al. v. Nichols et. al.
was brought on behalf of Chinese students in San Francisco and led to
legislation requiring that all schools provide special assistance to their
students whose native language is not English. The Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA) provided funds to
classify students with physical and neurological problems and provide these
students with special education programs when it was believed that they could
not be accommodated in regular programs. Advocates for "gifted"
students increasingly used the "bell curve" logic to argue that the
gifted and the cognitively disabled are like a pair of bookends, and that those
at the high end of the curve also required special support because they are as
different from "normal" students as the disabled. Educators responded
in culturally predictable ways. They identified students who were
"different," diagnosed their differences as scientifically as
possible, and assigned them to a category. They then grouped students for
instruction with others in the same category and tailored curriculum and
teaching to what each group "needs" and what the culture expects. So,
today, educators routinely assign "normal" students to
"regular" classes at different levels (e.g., high, average, slow).
They place the others in "special" programs for learning disabled,
behavioral problems, gifted, limited English, poverty-related academic
deficiencies, and more. Within homogenous groups, teachers assume students can
move lock step through lessons and that all class members will profit from the
same instruction on the same content at the same pace. Lurking just beneath the
surface of these highly rationalized practices, however, are the illusion of
homogeneity, the social construction of classifications, the prevailing biases
of race and social class, and self-fulfilling prophesies of opportunities and
outcomes.
laws and the necessity of a highschool diploma drew more and more students to
school—even those previously considered uneducable. States and local school
systems developed an array of special programs for students who, in earlier
times, simply would not have been in school. By the 1960s, the federal
government had turned to special categorical programs as its principal way to
guarantee education for all American students. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA) provided categorical funding
for "educationally deprived" students. Lau et. al. v. Nichols et. al.
was brought on behalf of Chinese students in San Francisco and led to
legislation requiring that all schools provide special assistance to their
students whose native language is not English. The Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA) provided funds to
classify students with physical and neurological problems and provide these
students with special education programs when it was believed that they could
not be accommodated in regular programs. Advocates for "gifted"
students increasingly used the "bell curve" logic to argue that the
gifted and the cognitively disabled are like a pair of bookends, and that those
at the high end of the curve also required special support because they are as
different from "normal" students as the disabled. Educators responded
in culturally predictable ways. They identified students who were
"different," diagnosed their differences as scientifically as
possible, and assigned them to a category. They then grouped students for
instruction with others in the same category and tailored curriculum and
teaching to what each group "needs" and what the culture expects. So,
today, educators routinely assign "normal" students to
"regular" classes at different levels (e.g., high, average, slow).
They place the others in "special" programs for learning disabled,
behavioral problems, gifted, limited English, poverty-related academic
deficiencies, and more. Within homogenous groups, teachers assume students can
move lock step through lessons and that all class members will profit from the
same instruction on the same content at the same pace. Lurking just beneath the
surface of these highly rationalized practices, however, are the illusion of
homogeneity, the social construction of classifications, the prevailing biases
of race and social class, and self-fulfilling prophesies of opportunities and
outcomes.
The considerable student differences within supposedly
homogenous classes are obvious and well documented. And yet, for most people,
the characteristics and categories by which students are sorted remain more
salient than the "exceptions" that impugn those categories. Many
educational constructs, including those used to classify students, began as
narrowly defined, highly specialized, technical terms or measures. However, as
they make their way from research to professional journals and teacher
preparation programs to popular media to the everyday talk of policymakers and
the public, they loose their narrow definitions and specialized uses. What may
have begun as specific technical concepts or as informal notions such as
"at risk," "gifted," "high ability,"
"college prep," "attention deficit,"
"hyperactive," "handicapped," etc. are quickly reified and
become a deeply embedded feature of students' identities in their own and
others' minds. African American, Latino, and low-income students are
consistently overrepresented in low-ability, remedial, and special education
classes and programs. This is not surprising, given that grouping practices
grew from the once accepted practice of preparing students of different racial,
ethnic and social-class backgrounds for their separate (and unequal) places in
society. In part, placement patterns reflect differences in minority and white
students' learning opportunities
that affect their preparation and achievements. But they also reflect the fact
that US schools use white, largely middle-class standards of culture and
language styles to screen for academic ability and talent. Teachers and school
psychologists sometimes mistake the language and dialect differences of
Hispanic and Black students for poor language skills, conceptual
misunderstandings, or even poor attitudes. An additional hazard for students of
color is that schools often confuse cultural differences with cognitive
disabilities, particularly retardation. Researchers have noted for the past 25
years that students with identical IQs but different race and social class have
been classified and treated very differently in special education placements. The misidentification problem
triggered both federal and state court decisions requiring that potentially
disabled students receive due process. In a far reaching decision, the
California courts ruled in Larry P. v. Wilson Riles (1979) that schools could
no longer use intelligence tests to identify minority students as mentally
retarded. However, substantial problems remain and new ones emerge, including
recent evidence that African American boys are disproportionately identified as
having Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).
homogenous classes are obvious and well documented. And yet, for most people,
the characteristics and categories by which students are sorted remain more
salient than the "exceptions" that impugn those categories. Many
educational constructs, including those used to classify students, began as
narrowly defined, highly specialized, technical terms or measures. However, as
they make their way from research to professional journals and teacher
preparation programs to popular media to the everyday talk of policymakers and
the public, they loose their narrow definitions and specialized uses. What may
have begun as specific technical concepts or as informal notions such as
"at risk," "gifted," "high ability,"
"college prep," "attention deficit,"
"hyperactive," "handicapped," etc. are quickly reified and
become a deeply embedded feature of students' identities in their own and
others' minds. African American, Latino, and low-income students are
consistently overrepresented in low-ability, remedial, and special education
classes and programs. This is not surprising, given that grouping practices
grew from the once accepted practice of preparing students of different racial,
ethnic and social-class backgrounds for their separate (and unequal) places in
society. In part, placement patterns reflect differences in minority and white
students' learning opportunities
that affect their preparation and achievements. But they also reflect the fact
that US schools use white, largely middle-class standards of culture and
language styles to screen for academic ability and talent. Teachers and school
psychologists sometimes mistake the language and dialect differences of
Hispanic and Black students for poor language skills, conceptual
misunderstandings, or even poor attitudes. An additional hazard for students of
color is that schools often confuse cultural differences with cognitive
disabilities, particularly retardation. Researchers have noted for the past 25
years that students with identical IQs but different race and social class have
been classified and treated very differently in special education placements. The misidentification problem
triggered both federal and state court decisions requiring that potentially
disabled students receive due process. In a far reaching decision, the
California courts ruled in Larry P. v. Wilson Riles (1979) that schools could
no longer use intelligence tests to identify minority students as mentally
retarded. However, substantial problems remain and new ones emerge, including
recent evidence that African American boys are disproportionately identified as
having Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).
Placement in a low class becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy
of low expectations, fewer opportunities, and poor academic performance. Poor performance begins the cycle anew,
giving additional justification to schools to reduce expectations and
opportunities. Extensive research makes clear that, in every aspect of what
makes for a quality education, kids in lower tracks typically get less than
those in higher tracks and gifted programs. Finally, grouping practices help
shape students' identities, status, and expectations for themselves. Both
students and adults mistake labels such as "gifted," "honor
student," "average," "remedial," "learning
disabled," and "mild mental retardation" for certification of
overall ability or worth. Everyone without the "gifted" label has the
de facto label of "not gifted." The resource classroom is a
low-status place and students who go there are low status students. The result
of all this is that most students have needlessly low self-concepts and schools
have low expectations. These recommendations reflect growing support for
heterogeneous grouping as necessary to ensure that all students have access to
high-quality curriculum, teachers, and learning experiences. For example,
early analyses of the disappointing performance of U.S. students on the Trends
in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) support mounting
concerns that the low scores stem, in part, from the tracking of most American
students in less academically demanding
math and science classes. Increasingly, educators and policymakers are
developing an awareness that schools cannot teach or achieve social justice
unless they eliminate grouping practices. A number of school desegregation
cases have cited the practice as a source of continuing racial discrimination.
However, this goal will not be accomplished quickly, and policy reports will
simply gather dust unless enlightened educators understand and act to change
the norms and political relations these grouping practices embody. There is a
long, hard road ahead.
of low expectations, fewer opportunities, and poor academic performance. Poor performance begins the cycle anew,
giving additional justification to schools to reduce expectations and
opportunities. Extensive research makes clear that, in every aspect of what
makes for a quality education, kids in lower tracks typically get less than
those in higher tracks and gifted programs. Finally, grouping practices help
shape students' identities, status, and expectations for themselves. Both
students and adults mistake labels such as "gifted," "honor
student," "average," "remedial," "learning
disabled," and "mild mental retardation" for certification of
overall ability or worth. Everyone without the "gifted" label has the
de facto label of "not gifted." The resource classroom is a
low-status place and students who go there are low status students. The result
of all this is that most students have needlessly low self-concepts and schools
have low expectations. These recommendations reflect growing support for
heterogeneous grouping as necessary to ensure that all students have access to
high-quality curriculum, teachers, and learning experiences. For example,
early analyses of the disappointing performance of U.S. students on the Trends
in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) support mounting
concerns that the low scores stem, in part, from the tracking of most American
students in less academically demanding
math and science classes. Increasingly, educators and policymakers are
developing an awareness that schools cannot teach or achieve social justice
unless they eliminate grouping practices. A number of school desegregation
cases have cited the practice as a source of continuing racial discrimination.
However, this goal will not be accomplished quickly, and policy reports will
simply gather dust unless enlightened educators understand and act to change
the norms and political relations these grouping practices embody. There is a
long, hard road ahead.
