It seems to me that more and more schools are opting for heterogeneous, as opposed to homogeneous, classes. In homogeneous classes, you would have students with fairly even academic levels. This process is called "tracking." In heterogeneous classes, you’d have a full spectrum of abilities.
An example of this would be if a school reduced the amount
of US History levels from 3 to 2. So,
let’s say that a high school were to have 3 levels of US History. The top level, Honors USH, might have 20% of
the USH students. The “lowest” level
might have 20% of USH students in USH - B, and lastly the Masses (60%) would be
in USH-A. Then, driven by support for
heterogeneity, or to de-track the USH classes, the school might combine USH-A and USH-B into one level.
The logic for this move is convincing. The former USH-B students, in a homogeneous
(tracked) system, generally had students that were more alienated, more problematic in
regard to behavior, less likely to do homework and more likely to have learning
disabilities. By lumping them altogether in one class, you make it more
difficult for any of them to succeed.
There are few role models in regard to homework, more distractions in
the classroom and a slower pace in regard to the teaching and learning. Critics of a tracked system which lumps
the very talented in one room, and the educationally challenged in another
room, argue that this policy can also be racist because of the disproportionate
amount of “children of color” in the lowest level US History class. Hence, as a result of the above, many schools
are opting to lump the middle and lower levels together, arguing that in doing
so, they are more “democratic.”
Defenders of this policy move say that the resultant
heterogeneous grouping is good for both the former USH-As and USH-Bs. The USH-Bs benefit from a more well behaved
classroom, a classroom culture that may more likely do homework, etc. Supporters of the move away from tracking
contend that the USH-As benefit from their likely role in tutoring some of the
USH-Bs, and from other leadership experiences they might more likely have.
I would hypothesize that the grades that USH-As get are
better in the “mixed classroom.” Hence,
USH-A parents, who measure success by grades, may feel that their kids are
actually doing better in the “mixed classroom” and therefore may support the policy.
Grades for some of the former USH-Bs may increase due to
some of the factors previously mentioned.
Some former USH-Bs may see a drop in grades if the teacher holds to the
old USH-A standards If the teacher does
accommodate the USH-Bs, then the grades of former USH-As may indeed go up.
Here are my bottom line questions:
1) If heterogeneity is such a positive, democratic move which would theoretically benefit all students, then why not follow that line of thinking across the board? Why not mix USH-Honors (or AP) with the USH-A and USH-B? I think I know why!!??
2) How was
your experience with homogeneous and heterogeneous classes? What were the relative benefits of each?
3) Defenders of heterogeneous grouping say that the key to success is differentiated instruction. They say the teacher can teach various levels within the same class. Therefore, within a class, you might have
4) As de-tracking leads to a mixing of the bottom two tiers resulting in just two levels of US History, for example, will this lead to an increase in former "mid-level" US History students to "emigrate" to the AP History course, and perhaps find themselves over their head. Might this not lead to dropping scores on the AP exams, as discussed in the following article, by Elisabeth Harrison, RIPR
RI Lags on AP testing
More Rhode
Island students are taking Advanced Placement tests, but they are not passing
at the same rates as their peers around the country.
Just 14.6
percent of last year’s senior class earned a three or better, below the
national average of 20 percent. Rhode Island ranks in the bottom 10 for school
systems nationwide, on par with Alaska and just slightly better than the
District of Columbia.
Elsewhere in
New England, 28.8 percent of Connecticut students passed at least one AP exam,
the second highest rate in the country. Massachusetts ranked in the top five,
with 27.9 percent of students passing. Vermont and Maine also ranked above the
national average.
The study
also reveals significant disparities for black and Hispanic students taking AP
exams in Rhode Island. Far fewer minority students take the tests, although
participation has increased, especially among Hispanic students, and far fewer
minority students earn at least a three.
In the class
of 2013, just two percent of black students and 10 percent of Hispanic students
earned a three or better, compared with nearly 80 percent of white students.
Nearly 70
percent of white students took an AP test, down from more than 80 percent in
2003.
It is widely accepted that the best way to learn a new language is through immersion. If one really wants to become fluent in a language, he must surround himself with native speakers of that language, and with the culture and practices of those who speak it. In schools, there is currently a cultural divide between students of different academic levels. For the most part, students are placed in classes based on their levels of academic achievement, which ideally allows for each student to move at a pace which works best for him or her. However, years of segregation have led to each group of students having drastically different mindsets about learning, school, and the other groups of students. The lower achievers are typically a mix of students who struggle with academics and/or simply do not care about school. The latter acts up in class and mouths off to teachers, which can have a serious effect on the former. Perhaps those who are good kids and are trying their hardest to do well are seeing those with no respect for authority or education (with whom they have been grouped for at least all of high school, if not some of middle school) and begin to think that this is a normal way to behave. Since they have been pigeonholed with the misbehavers, they have no peers in their classes who are role models for good behavior. They are immersed in the culture of the counterculturists, which they learn to understand and take part of. It is possible that good kids who are poor students are so tired of being grouped with the bad kids that they begin to act out, either because they feel that that is what is expected of them since they are not good students, or because they are angry at the system for forcing them to spend all of their school days with those who do not want to go to class or learn. It must be awfully hard to continue to want to go to school if you know that your whole day will be spent with degenerates.
ReplyDeleteOn the opposite end of the spectrum, there are the honors and AP kids. Having been one of these kids in high school, I am shamefully aware that there is often an air of condescension among the higher achievers. It was not uncommon for students – and even teachers – in the higher level classes to talk about the lower level classes as if they were all morally and intellectually inferior. The mid level classes were like the anonymous middle child of the family. Trapped between the “mutants” and the “overachievers,” they don’t get the same attention as those in the lower level who were acting out or in need of extra instruction, nor the praise received by those in the upper level classes who improve the school’s test score average. Everybody has some level of contempt for the other levels of the hierarchy. If we want students to understand one another and look at their classmates as equals, we need to desegregate, or “de-track” them. Just as the best way to understand the Spanish culture and people is to surround oneself with Spaniards, the best way for students to understand different types of students is to surround themselves with those students. Honors level students will only stop thinking of all lower level kids as inferior and poorly behaved if they spend time learning beside them and understanding who they are as people. Lower and mid level students who do their best and still don’t get the kind of attention they want will only feel more accepted when they are allowed to learn next to the high scorers. Academically, homogeneous learning may be able to provide students with better opportunities to learn. Socially, however, it is driving students apart. I do not believe that marginally better test scores are worth making students hate each other and school. While I do not think that tracking is driven by racism, I do believe that it shares the same ideals as racism. In the past, whites were thought to be inherently superior, just as high scorers today are thought to be inherently superior. We realized the problem with racial segregation, and it is only a matter of time before we denounce intellectual segregation.
When I was in the forth grade, a friend of mine (who would later go on to become my graduating class's salutatorian) was placed in a heterogeneous classroom. She was smart, respectful, and worked really hard. In the school's mind, she was a perfect example of what an exemplary student should look like. She was placed in a class with a lot of lower level achievers and some behavioral issues. The idea behind this set up was that those students might started to emulate my friend's behavior and become better students due to her positive presence in the classroom. Unfortunately that is not what happened. My friend quickly began to notice that she was held to a much higher standard than the rest of her classmates and began slacking off and acting up. What happened in this case was the exact opposite of what the school had wanted; instead of the other kids emulating my friend's behavior, my friend began emulating the behavior of the lower achievers. While she was very young and impressionable when this event occurred, I have seen it occur throughout my schooling all the way through high school. I can only speak from the standpoint of a higher achiever in a heterogeneous class, but I know that when I was placed in a class with students who learned at a slower pace than me, I often times got bored, would lose my focus, and would not try very hard. My high school teachers never tried to do any sort of differentiated instruction and I think that would have been the only solution to making those classes run more smoothly.
ReplyDeleteI personally found that teachers and students alike have more success in homogeneous classrooms. When everyone is on the same page and moving at the same pace I found that everyone benefitted much more. For example, my junior year I took AP US History. There were 10 very high powered students in my class with a very high powered teacher. We moved at a very fast pace and there was a lot of content. There was no time for fooling around and the ten of us would have never dreamed of acting out in that setting. In the end it all paid off, all ten of us received fives on the test. I had a lot of my other classes with those same students, and when we were put into heterogeneous classes, we were the first ones to get bored and start goofing off, which ruined learning for others. The homogeneous classrooms were the ones that produced the best results.
I found the statement on intellectual segregation to be quite interesting. While I understand the argument that homogeneous classrooms can be seen as racist due to the higher number of minority students in lower level classes, one has to stop and think: would throwing these kids into a higher level truly benefit that student and the students around him or her? Even if students are placed in lower level classes, if they have the drive to work hard, they can always move up to higher levels as the years go on. It is not racial profiling that puts students in a higher or lower level class; it is their intellectual abilities that put them there. Some students are going to be naturally better at reading, while others may have a knack for science, while others may be strong all around. That is simply how we are as human beings. Splitting classrooms up based on the level of learners is not like racial segregation because racial segregation was based on people's opinions and their pettiness, while homogeneous classrooms are based upon factual evidence that states how strong a student is. It is not fair for a lower leveled student to be thrown in with a bunch of top achievers and get buried in the shuffle because everything is way over his or her head while the rest of the class has no problem with it, and it is not fair to a higher leveled student to be thrown in a class that moves at a pace that is too slow for him or her.
I completely support the use of heterogeneous classrooms. Homogeneous classrooms with students all of the roughly same academic ability as other students tend to end up with de facto racial segregation, as well. Statistically, AP or honors classes tend to be predominantly white students from higher income families, while the lower level classes contain the minority students. In my high school experience, I was in mostly AP and Honors classes. I can personally attest to the lack of racial diversity in my classes throughout the entirety of high school. Though my town itself lacks diversity, there were still choice students from the inner city areas that would come to the high school. I can count on one hand the amount of times choice students were in my class. All of my friends were in Honors and AP classes and shared the same schedule as me. For the most part, all of my classes were with generally the same people, giving me little opportunity to interact with minority students.
ReplyDeleteThough one could argue that it isn't the fault of homogeneous classes that minority students are usually excluded from AP and Honors courses, the concept of homogeneous classrooms discourages students in the lower level classes to strive to advance a level. It sets them on a track for continuing underachievement or average work and teaches those students not to strive for excellence. With heterogeneous classrooms, the advanced students set an example for their classmates and maybe even inspire them work harder than they would in their homogeneous classes. Heterogeneous classes would inspire both improvement in the lower achieving students and camaraderie amongst minority and white students, where there was next to none.
Although I can definitely understand the arguments towards having heterogeneous classrooms, based on experience I lean towards a more homogeneous classroom. Now, with the common core there are certain standards and expectations that each level should learn in a given year and that is beneficial because it attempts to put all students on the same level in terms of the knowledge they learn in a given year, but as a student who took many AP and honors level courses throughout high school, I have also been in mixed classrooms with students who both behave badly or do not learn the same as I do and it is frustrating to be around them and it takes away from my opportunity of learning and progressing.
ReplyDeleteIn my high school there were two or three levels for each subject. The first level was called “college prep” which sounds fancier than it actually is! These prep classes were not gearing you towards college, they were the basic level course that the majority of students took. The second level was honors and the third level was advanced placement, when offered. There was not much of a difference between college prep and honors but honors was weighed higher towards our GPA. I think the main differences between the two only applied to English courses and was that honors read an extra two books and had an extra essay per semester. I think most kids undermined themselves and had a certain vision of the group that would take these classes or just did not want to try and that’s why they remained in prep classes.
I took AP history courses starting freshmen year and there were around twenty of us who took these advanced courses 9th through 11th grade. I got used to taking courses with this certain group of kids and felt comfortable in the classroom setting with them and our teacher. But outside of history and English classes I was mixed with different levels and when it came to electives, mixed with different grades. The worst class I ever had to take was a psychology course. There were so many levels in that class that I did not learn anything that semester. There were many kids that clearly did not care about school and there were some who liked to argue with the teacher and act out. The teacher had to result to giving us work from the book because he couldn’t get though half of a lesson with the widespread bad behavior. Because of my personal working habits, I finished the work instead of socializing and then felt like my time in the room was wasted because there would be no more assignments. Every student learns differently and in high this expectation that every student at and by a certain level will understand and know about certain topics in a given subject (common core standards) is unrealistic, especially without trying to separate the students who have trouble learning as fast as some of their peers. I believe that every student should be setup to succeed and to perform to their best ability. Of course it does not boost one’s ego if one is alienated and put into a slower paced classroom, but it accommodates to the individual and if that will benefit them the most I do not see why learning levels should not be separated. I completely understand the benefits discussed by Katie of mixing levels and races and while I agree with Ben when he says that he does not believe the tracking is driven by racism, until the already established racial segregation or de facto segregation disappears, minorities will be separated and sadly their statistics probably will see little change.
I guess my question for those who fully support heterogeneous classrooms is. If you want to integrate levels, do you lower the "advanced" group of kids or raise the "lower" group? Which group then benefits from this since one group may be held back from their potential or the other may be set up for too hard a class?
As a student who has taken numerous honors and AP courses while also taking regular courses, it is easy to juxtapose the classroom environment between the different types of classes. To start, the students signing up for honors and AP courses are much more motivated and driven when it comes to schoolwork, meaning that they will be more serious about homework and in-class discussions. This leads to a better class environment in my opinion because students will be more focused on the work at hand rather than fooling around and disrupting the class. In regular courses, usually it is a mixture between students who are motivated, and students who could not give the teacher or professor the time of day. These classes can be less enjoyable as discussions are lacking content, lectures are usually disrupted by students who are not on task or are very behind on the material; altogether, this takes away from the experience for the students who are following along with the work and are staying focused. These characteristics of classes become especially important when considering group work. Group work in classes that are mixed tend to leave the diligent students with a large pile of work, while the other students give minimal to no effort. In an honors or AP course, however, the groups are full of students who give a 100% effort, making sure that no one group member is doing more work than the others. This is a great group work environment because everyone can bounce ideas off of one another, thus leading to a more successful project overall. Because of this, I do not agree with the heterogeneous or “mixed” courses being the most beneficial to students.
ReplyDeleteAJ