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

In relation to gifted students themselves, opponents of ability grouping argue that, for example, giftedand talented students are seen as being able to help other children by teaching and setting an example.Winner (1996a), an advocate of ability grouping, believes this to be a strategy which is perceived bysome as having academic benefits, by giving opportunities to consolidate their learning, and socialbenefits, by helping them interact with students of all levels of ability. She reports that opponents oftenargue that grouping students will result in arrogance and elitism amongst the gifted and talentedstudents, and so, gifted and talented students are seen as needing opportunities to appreciate diversitywithin society, which mixed-ability grouping provides (Rogers, 2002a).A Summary of the Arguments in Support of Ability GroupingProponents of ability grouping also argue points of equity, with Winner (1996a) stating that theelimination of ability grouping is “caving in to a simplistic egalitarian agenda” (p. 242). Rogers(2002a) believes that the elimination of ability grouping is not in fact democratic, but egalitarianism atits worse. Fiedler et al. (2002) argue that equality in education does not require all students having thesame experiences, on the assumption that heterogeneous grouping often results in fewer opportunitiesfor individualised, differentiated instruction. They state that a democratic position promises equalopportunity for the actualisation of potential, describing the inequity in denying gifted and talentedstudents an appropriate education. Feldhusen and Moon (1992) believe that heterogeneity is inherentlyunjust in its potential to treat ‘unequals’ equally. Rogers (2002a) and Fiedler et al. (2002) describeanother injustice, which might be called ‘The Ned Kelly Effect’: taking from the rich to give to thepoor. These writers see little justice in eliminating opportunities at the expense of gifted and talentedstudents for the benefit of all others.To every concern raised by opponents of ability grouping, it seems advocates have a response. Forexample, in regards to under-representation of culturally diverse students and those from lower socioeconomicgroups, Winner (1996a) claims that elimination of ability grouping will have the mostdetrimental effects upon students of minority cultures and lower income families, because their parentshave no options apart from what the public school system offers. Fiedler et al. (2002) point toproblems with identification, rather than ability grouping, stating that “Eliminating ability groupingbecause of inequitable identification procedures is tantamount to throwing out the baby with the bathwater” (p. 5). Educators of gifted and talented students readily recognise the potential negative, eveninequitable, outcomes for other students, acknowledging the need to address these concerns (Rogers,2002a).The assumption that the presence of gifted students advantages all others is also questioned. Fiedlerand her colleagues (2002) cite research which indicates that students model their behaviour on othersof similar ability, as opposed to those of far greater ability. In fact, they raise concerns regarding theeffects to self-perceived competence and capabilities of students of lower ability who are placed inheterogeneous groups with gifted and talented students. Allan (1991) supports this view, in fact, shequestions the notion that lower ability students will look up to those with special abilities. As shestates, “students gain most from watching someone of similar ability ‘cope’” (p. 64). Van Tassel-Baska (1992a) points out that the benefits for gifted and talented students of ‘serving those lessfortunate’ are not clear. Feldhusen (1986) reports that when gifted and talented students are notpresent, other students get a chance to be the top performers – a new cream rises. Shore and Delcourt(1996) conclude, “there is emerging evidence that other children are not necessarily advantaged by thepresence of gifted children in their classrooms nor disadvantaged by their absence” (p. 152).Proponents of grouping by ability also point to negative effects upon gifted and talented students ifgrouping is abandoned. Winner (1996a) believes that elimination of ability groups will set a ‘lower’standard – mediocrity – and this will have negative effects upon gifted students. Goldring (1990) feelsthat students not ability grouped risk rejection by peers in heterogeneous grouping situations, thedevelopment of behavioural problems and manifestation of underachievement. Fielder et al. (2002)raise concerns that gifted and talented students who are a ‘minority of one’ in a mixed-ability settingmay feel odd, or even arrogant. They warn that by not ability grouping gifted and talented students anair of snobbery might be created, increasing the possibilities of elitism. Rogers (2002a) and Feldhusen62