Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Only the Names Have Been Changed: Ability Grouping Revisited

  • Published:
The Urban Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, I employ a study of 25 sixth grade teachers of “regular” and “honors” language arts classes in a large urban district as a vehicle for discussing ability grouping. Despite not being asked any questions about grouping or differentiation, differences in students and instruction among the two class levels was a major focus of the teachers’ responses. Most of the teachers’ descriptions of students in regular classes were remarkably similar to negative descriptions from ability grouping and tracking research of the 1970s and 1980s, and the instruction they described was comparably limiting. The findings suggest that, among these teachers, euphemistic terms such as regular and “grade level,” have replaced clear-cut terms used in the past (“basic” and “low”), making class leveling systems more confusing. Navigating this system is especially difficult for parents with social, cultural, and/or academic capital that does not match well with that of most school personnel. Implications for research and practice are addressed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allington, R. L. (1980). Poor readers don’t get to read much in reading groups. Language Arts, 57, 872–876.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allington, R. L. (1983). The reading instruction provided readers of differing reading abilities. The Elementary School Journal, 83, 548–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alvarez, D., & Mehan, H. (2006). Whole-school detracking: A strategy for equity and excellence. Theory Into Practice, 45, 82–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Apple, M. (2001). Comparing neo-liberal projects and inequality in education. Comparative Education, 37, 409–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers’ sense of efficacy and student achievement. New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Auerbach, S. (2002). Why do they give the good classes to some and not to others?” Latino parent narratives of struggle in a college access program. Teachers College Record, 104, 1369–1392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barker Lunn, J. C. (1970). Streaming in the primary school. London, England: National Foundation for Educational Research in England and Wales.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barr, R. (1995). What research says about grouping in the past and present and what it suggests about the future. In M. Radencich & L. McKay (Eds.), Flexible grouping for literacy in the elementary grades (pp. 1–24). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barr, R., & Dreeben, R. (1991). Grouping students for reading instruction. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. II, pp. 885–910). New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartolomé, L. I. (2003). Beyond the methods fetish: Toward a humanizing pedagogy. In A. Darder, M. Baltodano, & R. D. Torres (Eds.), The critical pedagogy reader (pp. 408–429). New York: Routledge/Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berghoff, B., & Egawa, K. (1991). No more “rocks”: Grouping to give students control of their learning. Reading Teacher, 44, 536–541.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanchett, W. J. (2006). Disproportionate representation of African American students in special education: Acknowledging the role of white privilege and racism. Educational Researcher, 35, 24–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. L. (1970). Teachers’ communication of differential expectations for children’s classroom performance: Some behavioral data. Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, 365–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carbonaro, W. J., & Gamoran, A. (2002). The production of achievement inequality in high school English. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 801–827.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chorzempa, B. F., & Graham, S. (2006). Primary-grade teachers’ use of within-class ability grouping in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 529–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cone, J. K. (2006). Detracked ninth-grade English: Apprenticeship for the work and world of high school and beyond. Theory Into Practice, 45, 55–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crosby, M. S., & Owens, E. M. (1993). The disadvantages of tracking and ability grouping: A look at cooperative learning as an alternative. Solutions and Strategies, 5, 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Datnow, A., & Hirschberg, D. (1996). A case study of king middle school: The symbiosis of heterogeneous grouping and multicultural education. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 1, 115–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donelan, R. W., Neal, G. A., & Jones, D. L. (1994). The promise of Brown and the reality of Academic Grouping: The tracks of my tears. The Journal of Negro Education, 63, 376–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dreeben, R., & Barr, R. (1988). Classroom composition and the design of instruction. Sociology of Education, 61, 129–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dreeben, R., & Gamoran, A. (1986). Race, instruction, and learning. American Sociological Review, 51, 660–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eder, D. (1981). Ability grouping as self-fulfilling prophecy: A micro-analysis of teacher-students interaction. Sociology of Education, 54, 151–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emerson, R., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erlandson, D. A., Harris, E. L., Skipper, B. L., & Allen, S. D. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esposito, D. (1973). Homogeneous and heterogeneous ability grouping: Principal findings and implications for designing more effective educational environments. Review of Educational Research, 43, 163–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faulkner, W. (1971). Requiem for a nun. New York: Vintage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fine, M., Bloom, J., Burns, A., Chajet, L., Guishard, M., Payne, Y., et al. (2005). Dear Zora: A letter to Zora Neale Hurston 50 years after Brown. Teachers College Record, 107, 496–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gambrell, L., Wilson, R. M., & Walter, N. (1981). Classroom observations of task-attending behaviors of good and poor readers. Journal of Educational Research, 74, 400–404.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gamoran, A. (1986). Instructional and institutional effects of ability grouping. Sociology of Education, 59, 185–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gamoran, A. (1992). The variable effects of high school tracking. American Sociological Review, 57, 812–828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gamoran, A., Nystrand, M., Berends, M., & Lepore, P. C. (1995). An organizational analysis of the effects of ability grouping. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 687–715.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 110–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (1972). Behavioral expression of teacher attitudes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 617–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodlad, J. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodlad, J. (1985). Forward to keeping track: How schools structure inequality (Oakes J.).. New Haven, CT: Yale University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graue, M. E., & Walsh, D. J. (1998). Studying children in context: Theories methods and ethics. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, R. P. (1984). Streaming, setting, and mixed ability grouping in primary and secondary schools: Some research findings. Educational Studies, 10, 209–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutiérrez, K. D., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or repertoires of practice. Educational Researcher, 32, 19–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haberman, M. (1991). The pedagogy of poverty versus good teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 73, 290–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ireson, J., & Hallam, S. (1999). Raising standards: Is ability grouping the answer? Oxford Review of Education, 25, 343–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kulik, C. C., & Kulik, J. A. (1982). Research synthesis on ability grouping. Educational Leadership, 82, 619–622.

    Google Scholar 

  • Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city: Studies in the Black English vernacular. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). But that's just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34, 159–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LeTendre, G. K., Hofer, B. K., & Shimizu, H. (2003). What is tracking? Cultural expectations in the United States, Germany, and Japan. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 43–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, S. R. (1999). Tracking inequality: Stratification and mobility in American high schools. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. W. (1984). Relationships among dimensions of self-attribution, dimensions of self-concept, and academic achievements. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 190–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthey, S. J. (2001). Identity construction in elementary readers and writers. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 122–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mehan, H. (1979). “What time is it, Denise?” Asking known information questions in classroom discourse. Theory Into Practice, 18, 285–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mehan, H., Villanueva, L., Hubbard, L., & Lintz, A. (1996). Constructing school success: The consequences of untracking low-achieving students. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nieto, S. (1995). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education. White Plains, NY: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nieto, S. (2000). Puerto Rican students in U S. schools.. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (1991). Instructional discourse, student engagement, and literature achievement. Research in the Teaching of English, 25, 261–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How school systems structure inequality. New Haven, CN: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oakes, J. (2005). Keeping track: How school systems structure inequality (2nd ed.). New Haven, CN: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oakes, J., Wells, A., Jones, M., & Datnow, A. (1997). Detracking: The social construction of ability, cultural politics, and resistance to reform. Teachers College Record, 98, 482–511.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orfield, G., & Lee, C. (2004). Brown at 50: King’s dream or Plessy’s nightmare?. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project, Harvard University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pallas, A., Entwistle, D., Alexander, K., & Stluka, F. (1994). Ability group effects: Instructional, social, or institutional? Sociology of Education, 67, 27–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radencich, M. C., & McKay, L. J. (1995). Flexible grouping for literacy in the elementary grades. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, K. (2004). The academic effects of acceleration. In N. Colangelo, S. Assouline, & M. Gross (Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (pp. 47–57). Iowa City, IA: The Belin Blank Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum, J. (1976). Making inequality: The hidden curriculum of high school tracking. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom: Teacher Expectation and Pupil’s Intellectual Development. New York: Holt, Rhinehart, and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowan, B., & Miracle, A. W. (1983). Systems of ability grouping and the stratification of achievement in elementary schools. Sociology of Education, 56, 133–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, B. (2006). Tracking and detracking: Debates, evidence, and best practices for a heterogeneous world. Theory Into Practice, 45, 4–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, B. C., & Noguera, P. A. (2004). Tracking and detracking: Sorting through the dilemmas and possibilities of detracking in practice. Equity and Excellence in Education, 37, 92–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schafer, W. E., & Olexa, C. (1971). Tracking and opportunity. Scranton, PA: Chandler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. (1982). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • The American Heritage Dictionary. (1982). The American Heritage Dictionary. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watanabe, M. (2006). Some people think this school is tracked and some people don’t: Using inquiry groups to unpack teachers’ perspectives on detracking. Theory Into Practice, 45, 24–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wells, A. S., & Oakes, J. (1996). Potential pitfalls of systemic reform: Early lessons from research on detracking. Sociology of Education, 69, 135–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wells, A. S., & Serna, I. (1996). The politics of culture: Understanding local political resistance to detracking in racially mixed schools. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 93–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welner, K., & Burris, C. C. (2006). Alternative approaches to the politics of detracking. Theory into Practice, 45, 90–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheelock, A. (1992). Crossing the tracks. New York: New World Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheelock, A. (1993). From tracking to untracking in the middle grades. Equity and Choice, 9, 44–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Worthy, J., Hungerford, H., & Hampton, A. (2009). Tracking and ability grouping. In L. Christenbury, R. Bomer, & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Handbook of research on adolescent literacy. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yonezawa, S., & Jones, M. (2006). Students’ perspectives on tracking and detracking. Theory Into Practice, 45, 15–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Curriculum and Instruction, University of Texas at Austin, 1 University Station, Austin, TX, 78712, USA

    Jo Worthy

Authors
  1. Jo Worthy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jo Worthy.

Additional information

This article is dedicated to the memory of Norma Carr. Norma was a teacher who recognized and inspired the best in children, a student who learned with joy, and a friend who gave more than anyone ever asked. Her expertise and insight were invaluable in this research.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Worthy, J. Only the Names Have Been Changed: Ability Grouping Revisited. Urban Rev 42, 271–295 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-009-0134-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-009-0134-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation