[Oz-gifted] Re: oz-gifted Digest, 1. Ability grouping (Kristy)

[Deidree McMaster]

On 24/11/2005, at 1:02 PM, oz-gifted-request at rite.ed.qut.edu.au wrote:

> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 11:15:22 +0800
> From: "Kristy" <ankone at bigpond.com>
>
> We would never consider age grouping of kids for many area's, swimming 
> as an
> example, so why is it so important to age group for education 
> purposes? I
> understand the social aspects that are thrown around often but dont 
> feel
> this should be a deciding factor. My eldest is the youngest in his 
> class but
> friends with the eldest. Its a MAG grouped class so the eldest are 
> actually
> 2 years older than him. I feel sometimes they underestimate the social
> abilities of many children and that given the chance they will find 
> friends
> whether they are in the same class or not.
>
> Wouldnt ability grouping make it easier on teachers? If they only need 
> to
> cater for similar ability students programming should be an easier 
> process.
>
> The argument of having role models for those on the lower end of the 
> scale
> can be countered by stating that ability grouping would allow those 
> children
> to excel within their group instead of constantly being at the lower 
> end of
> a class.
>
> I am sure there are many reasons why this wouldnt be possible. I guess 
> I am
> more curious to know if it has ever been considered or if it is used 
> at all.
> Makes a whole lot more sense to me than age grouping of kids.
>
> Thanks
> Kristy

My problem with the phrase "grouping by ability" is that I wouldn't know
what "ability" is. Okay, I guess I would have been classified as "high
ability" because in school I was always good at writing, good at Maths. 
But
what about my friend the talented graphical artist - who at ten years 
old
was painting murals for the school - or the young singer who always
performed the school song at assemblies? I expect they are both probably
doing quite well in their respective fields, but would it be fair to 
class
them as "low ability" based on the three "R"s?

And if you do group according to non-traditional disciplines, where do 
you
draw the line? Is physical prowess "academic ability"? And why exactly 
would
it help the sporty kid's development to group them with the literary 
genius?
In an ideal world, perhaps for every lesson students could re-assemble 
into
groups depending on the subject topic. That requires two things: a large
enough school to provide many specialised groups and a *very* good
timetabling system.

Personally, I think that "age" groups most of the time, with occasional
ability based specialty groups (remedial reading, advanced mathematics 
or
multi-age sporting teams, for example) is a pretty good way to go.

Cheers,

K.  (from Aus Mensa e-list)

Actually, the more I think about it, the arguments for "grouping by 
ability"
are strikingly similar to arguments for "grouping by behaviour". That 
would
put the restless gifted kids in one room, the attentive quiet achievers 
in
another and the thugs somewhere else entirely.

It seems to me as though that's what some people would like to see 
happen,
but they might be reluctant to admit it.

Cheers,

K. (who could think of nothing worse than the above description as a 
basis
for division of students, but then again: maybe that's because she was 
one
of the thugs)