Ability grouping has benefits too

Although I applaud Matt Graham's Nov. 12 column, "Equal opportunity takes a backseat," for highlighting inequality inherent in our schools, I hesitate to endorse favoring "high achievers" through ability grouping.

Graham makes the claim that "pooling students of varying ability levels inherently compromises the quality of education" but provides little evidence to substantiate such a claim. In fact, the research suggests otherwise. Incorporating mixed ability groups-ones built on collaboration and fluid participation- into the classroom can provide academic and social benefits for both high achieving and low achieving students alike, as noted by a number of educational researchers whose roots are found in Robert Slavin (1986), Walter Secada (1992) and Anne Wheelock (1994).

But shouldn't there be some sort of program in place to allow those "high achievers" to reach their fullest potential? Certainly, but I believe that should be the case for all children. Ability grouping merely replicates much of the ethnic and socioeconomic stratification that exists currently in schools. Attempting to categorize students as either low or high achievers, a process that occurs as early as third grade, is often permanent, and is often along ethnic and socioeconomic lines.

Why don't we place a focus on maintaining a highly rigorous, relevant curriculum that is built upon good teachers and best practices-those privileges currently enjoyed by the "high achievers"-and enact that across all academic levels? Instead of focusing on the bottom, all students start at the top and stay there. It is amazing what high expectations and best practices will do for a seemingly "low-achieving" student. All of a sudden, those categories become increasingly blurred and meaningless. In this instance, low, middle and high achievers alike are given "equal opportunity" to the best quality education possible. Graham's right, that opportunity shouldn't be denied.

Aaron Markham

Trinity '09