Chapter 10 – Ability Grouping, Equity, and Survival of the Quickest

If I were to provide advice to Boaler as to how she could improve this book for further editions I would suggest that she rename Chapter 10 – “DIS-ability” Grouping.

The disconnect between student and teacher needs, student and teacher beliefs and student and teacher ideas regarding ability grouping became very clear as I read this chapter and prepared to lead the discussion.

I was shocked first and foremost by the fact that the set decisions (and set implications) are often hidden from students, and that they may actually spend a great deal of time working in a class unaware of the set that they are in. The rationale for this is that students often become demoralized and unmotivated when set decisions are made known.....and with just cause I believe.....wouldn’t you be upset to know that no matter how hard you work, that even if you know 100% of the material you can still only receive a low grade on a standardized test, I know I would. I think I would be even more upset if this knowledge was withheld from me for a long period of time, if I thought I was doing well, only to find out that I was doing so well because I was actually working at a much lower level than I had thought. So who does this decision to withhold set decisions from students really benefit? The teachers of course, they don’t have to deal with students acting out or not completing work because “what’s the point if you can only get a low grade?”

This disconnect between students desire to do well and their opportunities to do well remained on my mind as I read the rest of the chapter. Students felt cheated by a system that teachers put in place because they feel it is not realistic to assume that all students can achieve A-levels......but why should the decision to decide who can try for A-levels rest with teachers? Why should the decision be made so early? Shouldn’t all students (like those at Phoenix Park) be given the same opportunities to learn and succeed, and then if the set-up of the exam requires that students be placed into sets can’t the decision be made much closer to the exam (much like at Phoenix Park).......oh, wait.....to teach in such a way requires much more work on the part of the teacher.....which brings me to my next point....

The nature of the lessons in ability grouped classes allows teachers the ability to work at a fixed pace, to deliver lessons using a one size fits all approach.....with little regard for understanding or students ability to keep up to the pace of the work; some students will become bored, some will become frustrated, but that’s the way the games is played.....

Speaking of games, the set up of the ability grouped classes encourages competition among students, which is alright for some, for the students who are competitive by nature, who do well in a competitive environment. But what about the students who experience anxiety and constant pressure because they feel as they are constantly being judged against their peers....what about those top set girls? The competition may have caused them more harm than good, and again, the competition was for the benefit of the teachers, not the students.

The grouping of students also appears to have been done for the benefit of the teachers, with some students reporting that they had been placed in a lower set than would have been expected due to their behaviour. This is discomforting to think that we would restrict a students potential based on their behaviour as opposed to examining factors, such as boredom or frustration that might be influencing their behaviour.

It’s interesting to note that ability grouping was designed to maximize student potential and achievement, but the data presented by Boaler is in sharp contrast to this. The students at Phoenix Park performed much better than Amber Hill student on the GCSE’s even though initial assessments suggested that achievement levels ought to have been similar? And if Amber Hill students were taught using a method that was designed to increase potential shouldn’t they have done much better than Phoenix Park’s students.......they were expected to....

But the measures put in place to bring about those high expectations did not meet the needs (or expectations) of students. The methods would put in place largely to assist teachers in maintaining structure in lessons, in planning one lesson to deliver to all students; they were not designed to stretch and support thought and understanding as did the lessons at Phoenix Park, they were not designed to maximize student enjoyment and success. The design of lessons at Amber Hill and the decision to ability group results in DISabled thought, DISabled achievement levels and DISaffected learners.......