Decades ago, students were placed in "pods" based on their relative ability in Mathematics and Reading and Writing.
Teachers, therefore, were able to target their lesson planning to a certain level of content and to a specific academic ability.
But, through the years, in the name of self-esteem and because of research which showed there were students who could rise academically if placed in classrooms with students who were above them in ability, and research which illustrated that if a teacher were told their students were gifted ( though they were not), teachers were more likely to teach those students with a higher level of expectation, and, at least in these particular studies, in those particular classes, students rose to the greater expectations, increasing their academic progress, it was decided homogenous classroom populations would be replaced with heterogenous, or mixed-ability, groups.
Using the results of this research as an impetus for a massive change in educational theory and policy, and implementing it on an enormous scale, has turned out to be a practice in futility.
For students who were advanced, being in classrooms with students with lower academic ability (which came in tandem, at times, with behavior problems which interfered with instruction), curriculum was "watered down" to meet the mixed ability masses, and they struggled as their teacher attempted to manage small group instruction, as well as individual needs, which spanned the intellectual spectrum.
There were "basic" students who were able to rise into higher "bands" of achievement, but for many students who were far below grade level, being expected to rise to levels of proficiency exhibited by other classmates, created a pattern of continual failure.
Instead of teaching low performing students at their "zone of proximal development" ["...the distance between a child's actual developmental level as determined through independent problem solving and [his or her] potential development [level] as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or a collaboration with more capable peers" (Vygotsky, 1978).], meeting students somewhere between what they can do independently and a developmentally appropriate intellectual challenge, we placed a majority of grade-level content out of their reach, making it appear, especially on end-of-the-year standardized tests, that they had not progressed, when indeed they had.
Is it no wonder that our high school drop-out rates increased during a time when there is more student support built within our public education system than ever before?
No.
If a student is told year after year that they are below grade level, failing to make progress, and consistently behind their classmates, they cannot help but begin to feel perpetually defeated and "dumb".
There are those out there who will argue "the one room schoolhouse theory" and "weren't those classrooms heterogenous".
Those classrooms were indeed heterogenous, but the student population was different. If students misbehaved, they could be sent home. Curriculum was more "real" than it is today. Students with "special needs" were not sent to school. Older students helped younger students. Parents supported the teacher.
Back to the present.
There are methods of assessment which can show a child is progressing annually at their own rate, within the range of their individual capacity. We've just buried these methods, along with many other rational strategies and techniques of public education's past.
