The sorting hat successor

Over the winter break, I’ve been thinking a lot about our APS students who are ready for advanced work. These students have been on my mind because of a recent report-out from the Gifted Services Advisory Committee and the recommendation currently under consideration by the School Board to expand intensified course offerings in middle school.

During my campaign and in my first year as a board member, I’ve talked a lot about every student getting the right level of support and challenge. This includes students who are testing and performing above grade level: they deserve their year's worth of academic growth, too, and to argue otherwise would mean accepting the idea that public education can only serve certain kinds of kids. I don’t believe any of us are well-served by a scarcity mindset.

So, how do we educate students who are ready for advanced work? (Note that I use the term “capable of advanced work” instead of “gifted” intentionally; these are separate but often related groups.) In broad strokes, the approaches have included separate magnet schools; acceleration by skipping grades or particular subjects; separate classes within a school; ability grouping within a general ed classroom; and personalized instruction. It’s a question with a complicated history and no perfect solution (yet).

I was one of these students and experienced all of the approaches mentioned above. I’m the parent of a student who craves more challenge and has on more than one occasion pleaded to be homeschooled or attend private school. And I’m a former teacher.

​
In 1992, I was a first year high school teacher and in my school system, like most across the country, tracking was accepted practice.

​“Tracking” was the pre-Harry Potter version of the Sorting Hat. Teachers and guidance counselors determined whether a student should be sorted into a vocational track, a college track, or honors-level coursework.

In my first year I taught two sections of “Tech Prep 10” and three sections of “College Prep 9” English. The Tech Prep English curriculum was very different and emphasized the kinds of real-world reading and writing tasks that students going straight into the workforce would be most likely to perform: interpreting lease agreements and employment contracts; filling out applications for jobs and bank accounts; writing resumes and cover letters.

Leaders in our school system launched Tech Prep with good intentions: the idea was to make the curriculum more relevant to students’ lives after high school. The problem, of course, was that the adults in charge got to determine each student’s life trajectory before they’d turned 14, and that often these decisions were colored by implicit (or sometimes explicit) bias.

In the 1980s and ‘90s, groups like the National Governors Association, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and the Children’s Defense Fund rallied to end tracking, correctly arguing that it perpetuated racial and economic inequity by setting up segregated school experiences within single school buildings.

Mixed-ability classrooms then became the norm. Teachers were tasked with meeting a wider range of student interests, abilities and needs, as had been the case decades before in the days of one-room, mixed-age schoolhouses. In modern mixed-ability classrooms, “differentiated instruction” (which had always been a part of teaching, even in the days of tracking) became even more important.
​
In her book The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All Learners, Carol Ann Tomlinson writes that teachers who excel at differentiated instruction

​do not force-fit learners into a standard mold; these teachers are students of their students. They are diagnosticians, prescribing the best possible instruction based on both their content knowledge and their emerging understanding of students' progress in mastering critical content. 
​
They do not aspire to standardized, mass-produced lessons because they recognize that students are individuals and require a personal fit. Their goal is student learning and satisfaction in learning, not curriculum coverage."

​There’s a whole body of literature describing the strategies that teachers can use to do this well; three overriding considerations are training, class size and time.

I mention training because most often, teachers themselves weren’t taught this way. In their undergraduate schools of education, professors may have talked about differentiated instruction, but they weren’t modeling it in a large lecture hall. And once they’ve started teaching, educators’ ongoing professional learning is all too often a one-size-fits-all affair.

Class size is a factor because it’s harder to be a “student of your students” when your average high school class size is 29 (California) versus 15-16 (Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire).

And last but not least, teachers need the time to design differentiated learning experiences and continually assess student progress. But in reality, teachers’ time to plan and collaborate with colleagues on this most essential task is often insufficient, because there are too many other competing demands.


Perhaps due to the challenges cited above, or the top-down pressures created by federally-mandated school accountability and accreditation measures, ability grouping is again on the rise, though in different forms than 20th century tracking. These new forms of ability grouping are more flexible and (ideally) give students and families more say--but they still draw criticism. The debate about how to meet the full range of student needs continues.

Short of a serious overhaul of our Industrial-era public education system (which I’ve written about before, here and here), we need to continually question our assumptions and fine-tune our practices. Former school principal and author Peter DeWitt says it well:

​For some teachers [here I would say “schools” or “districts”], ability grouping is working, or at least they say it is. My suggestion is to prove it. Provide the evidence to show that students are making at least a year’s growth in a year’s time, and that they are actually engaged in learning that they want to get back to each and every day.

Prove that they are not being held from learning ever more than they could because they are in an ability group that may stifle learning. Provide evidence that ability grouping fosters the growth mindset that we so often talk about.

The same can be said for mixed ability grouping. Are we accelerating students through learning based on their own understanding, or are we merely creating a fixed situation even though the students are mixed? Do we have a 1-2 combination where we are making all of the students do the same thing?

As a former school leader I am less concerned by which method teachers are using, and more concerned with the evidence they have to prove that it’s working. If students are being challenged academically at the same time they are being supported socially-emotionally, then I would be happy with either method."