Commentary

‘Whole-group instruction’ drags good math pupils down
By Susan Goodkin and David G. Gold
Originally published in the Philadelphia Inquirer, October 17, 2006
Reprinted with permission.

Given the math training our gifted elementary students receive in public schools today, America’s recent sweep of the Nobel prizes in science and economics is a feat unlikely to be duplicated by younger generations.

Frustrated parents nationwide will attest that the predominant method of elementary-school math instruction holds back our top young math minds, and, as practiced under the No Child Left Behind Act, stultifies them. Remedying this requires the political will to implement a solution that is obvious but runs afoul of both liberal and conservative political agendas.

Research consistently shows, and common sense dictates, that the best way to nurture high-ability math minds is to group these children together and give them a curriculum geared to their abilities. Rather than implementing such “ability grouping,” however, most elementary schools nationwide take exactly the opposite approach: “whole-group instruction.”

In whole-group instruction, all children are taught the same lesson at the same time, without regard to their ability or mastery of the subject. Education experts have long recognized that such instruction impedes high-ability students. Karen B. Rogers, author of Re-Forming Gifted Education, unequivocally states, “If educators should want to level the playing field of achievement so that all become mediocre in their output, then whole-group instruction is the answer!”

In contrast to math, primary teachers almost universally teach reading through ability grouping. Educators clearly understand that without differentiated reading groups, Harry Potter readers would spend their time listening to the teacher help those students struggling to sound out Hop on Pop. Whole-group instruction is the mathematical equivalent. As an acquaintance recently recounted, when his child requested harder math work, his teacher responded that he must “wait until the others catch up.” This is, unfortunately, a refrain heard across the country.

The problems have increased under the No Child Left Behind Act. NCLB threatens draconian sanctions for failing to bring all children up to minimum proficiency but no penalties for failing to advance those children who already meet the standards. Thus it pressures math teachers to aim the discussion at the least skilled, and to ignore our future math and science leaders.

Math-ability grouping encounters resistance from across the political spectrum. Many liberals oppose expanded use of any instruction method that acknowledges students differ in their abilities. Their attitude is partly a response to the rightly discredited practice of tracking. As widely employed in the 1960s, tracking inflexibly placed students in a fixed learning tier, and frequently did so in a racially biased manner.

Liberals, while appropriately rejecting tracking, threw out the baby with the bath water. They concluded that recognizing any differences in ability is elitist. Yet a truly equitable education system would provide all children, including the most advanced, the opportunity to learn at their own level - a goal that cannot be met through whole-group instruction.

Conservatives are also reluctant to champion ability grouping. To admit that the current approach holds students back, conservatives would have to admit that NCLB is a substantial obstacle, not a solution, to improving math instruction to gifted children.

Ability grouping can serve all students without the flaws of tracking. It is much more fluid, allowing students to move easily between groups, depending on their mastery of the subject and unit being taught. Moreover, evidence suggests that when unbiased assessment procedures are used, the group that benefits most from this approach is high-ability minority students.

Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings has declared that this administration’s educational efforts will “make sure we continue to lead the world in Nobel Prize winners.” However, if President Bush truly wants our public schools to develop math and science leaders, the federal government must provide incentives for teachers to group math students by ability. This is the only way we can strive to bring all students up to proficiency - and produce Nobel laureates.

Susan Goodkin is an advocate for the education of gifted children. David G. Gold is a legal and economic consultant. Contact the writers at SGoodkin@aol.com and davidgold4@aol.com.
_________________________