Differentiation: No Different, Even With Tracking

In advising teachers about how to group kids for differentiated instruction, Carol Ann Tomlinson provides three axes to think about:  interest, ability and readiness.  I used to think that mixed ability groups were always the best, but after reading her book and hearing her speak, I realize that different situations call for different types of grouping.  So, last year, I used homogenous grouping more often than I had in the past.  I think it was a good idea.  Normally, in heterogeneous groups, when one student is more able to complete the task, she or he usually tells the partner the answer.  So, the partner doesn't really learn.  I liked the homogenous grouping because I think it was helpful for two students to struggle together with the cognitive task. Of course, this falls apart when neither student is engaged and they do little without me working with them.

This year, our scheduling has resulted in meta-homogenous grouping:  For several years, the kids who score advanced in math and English were automatically plucked from regular classes and dropped into GATE classes.  But now, the kids remaining in the regular pool at our school are being tracked into classes based largely on their CST scores (with a little bit of wiggle room based on grades).  The more advanced kids get an intervention class called "Humanities" and the less advanced kids are programmed into "Academic Literacy."

This felt like tracking to me and I was immediately opposed to it.

The two "Humanities" groups I have are some of the most motivated and dedicated students I have ever had. And, most are better able to persist with cognitively difficult tasks, instead of opting out by distracting themselves and each other.  Those that do get easily distracted or don't consistently persist still do better than they did last year in regular classes because the class culture this year is more serious about school. That means the kids more likely to give up quickly, feel peer pressure to persist in the class longer.  That's good, but not surprising.

I didn't know what to expect from the other two groups of kids I have: the "Academic Literacy" groups.  What I am finding is that this grouping seems to be more of a mixed bag.  The positive is that it is easier for me to teach this group, and I think easier for them to learn, because everyone is generally at the same level in terms of reading ability.  That means I can provide more scaffolding for this group and go a little slower.

But, like any other class I have had, teaching to the middle doesn't serve the needs of the kids at the edges of the spectrum.  So, differentiation is still necessary.  I have some super motivated, very strong readers - who I would love to put into a Humanities class, but cannot for reasons too numerous to explain here.  And, I have super unmotivated students, and students with very low reading skills that require a lot of support.

But, what is better, is that the spectrum of abilities is compressed. The kids outside the middle are not as far outside (in both directions) than I have seen them before this year's new grouping.  So, it is much easier for me to scale up or scale down, depending on the student.

Still, I realize that my experience is different than other teachers.  I don't have any kids that are Far Below Basic on the CST, that test I abhor so much.  They just happen to be in another "Academic Literacy" class.  I suspect that those classes are harder to teach because they have more students who:

1. Have scored FBB because they rationally decided to opt out of a schooling system that doesn't serve their needs or honor who they are as individuals,
2. Have undiagnosed learning disabilities,
3. Have large gaps in their learning and really need some extra support, 
4. All of the above

I can't speak to the experience of those teaching this group.  But, for me, I am trying to take advantage of the groupings I have and try to get my students to learn as much as possible.