The Extent, Nature and Effectiveness of Planned Approaches in ...

challenging for them” (Fielder et al., 2002, p. 108). As Van Tassel-Baska (1992a) states abilitygrouping is not about allowing learners “to stagnate in age-grade lock-step classrooms” (p. 70).As a result of the various meanings and interpretations of ability grouping, coupled with confusionover the differences between ability grouping and tracking or streaming, educators have tended to takeeither a ‘black’ or ‘white’ view of the appropriateness of ability grouping, with their feet firmlyplanted on one side of the fence or the other. Opponents of ability grouping tend to believe that itsdrawbacks outweigh any potential positive effects; proponents of ability grouping feel strongly thatdespite the pros and cons, to eliminate ability grouping is an injustice to gifted and talented students. Itis important that educators understand both sides of the ability grouping controversy and these arebriefly outlined below.A Summary of the Arguments Against Ability GroupingKulik (2003), a proponent of ability grouping, states that those opposed to ability grouping generallyview such practices as undemocratic forms of segregation which must be eliminated in the name ofequality of opportunity. Slavin (1991) describes ability grouping as “anti-democratic” and “antiegalitarian.”Raywid (1990) believes that in a democratic society resources should be allocated in anequal fashion, with those initiatives of most pressing need or resulting in the most enormous benefitsworthy of expenditure. In an interview, Oakes contends that ability grouping creates a hierarchy inschools, resulting in a school culture in which students take on board the values associated with theirplacement in the top, bottom, or middle group (O’Neil, 1992). The flow-on effect of this hierarchymay lead to teacher competition to ‘teach the best,’ with more competent teachers gaining ‘theprivilege’ to work with top-performing students (Gamoran, 1992). Some argue that gifted and talentedstudents are already advantaged by their natural abilities and that they “will do well no matter wherethey are” (Slavin, 1991, p. 70).Ability grouping is further described by opponents as ‘racist and classist,’ with under-representation ofdiverse cultures and lower socioeconomic groups (O’Neil, 1992). From a cultural perspective, Bevan-Brown (2000a) signals concerns regarding ability grouping and Mäori students. She bases some ofthese on the international literature which signals the under-representation of students from minoritycultures. However, she also highlights the situation whereby Mäori gifted and talented secondarystudents are left with a dilemma of ‘either/or’ choices: being in a top-stream class or bilingual class.Bevan-Brown’s major issues with ability grouping are as an organisational strategy which createsforced choices for Mäori students and the dangerous stereotyping and low expectations which mayprevent Mäori students from ever being identified and placed in the ‘top’ group. As she states, herbone of contention is with “… any scheduling, administrative procedure, teacher action or the like thatresults in a Mäori student being disadvantaged because of their participation in cultural activities”(2000a, no page given).Opponents of ability grouping often cite the negative effects upon students other than the gifted(Raywid, 1990). These include loss of academic leadership; inexperienced teachers; and lowexpectations of teachers which result in a ‘self-fulfilling prophecy’ for lower-ability students(Gamoran, 1992; O’Neil, 1992; Slavin, 1991). Writers describe inequality in outcomes for students,with high-ability students gaining more and low-ability students losing out (Gamoran, 1992), claimingthat the law of averages indicates that these gains and losses would equate to ‘zero-effects’ and sooverall student achievement is not enhanced (Gamoran, 1992). Unequal instruction is described, with aslower pace for lower ability students and less time on instruction due to interruptions and behaviourproblems in low-ability groups (Gamoran, 1992; O’Neil, 1992). Oakes claims that in many schools inthe United States, students with behavioural problems are most likely to be placed in the lowest ‘track’(O’Neil, 1992). Furthermore, opponents to ability grouping often cite inequalities in the nature andnumber of learning experiences in critical thinking, problem solving, challenge, hands-on learning,and the like that gifted and talented students receive in like-ability instruction (Allan, 1991; O’Neil,1992). As Raywid (1990 states, “… these are advantages which every child could gain from – not justthe gifted” (p. 68).61