Years ago, after the one-room-school-house era, and then the one-grade-per-classroom-heterogenous era, Americans decided to group children, within their grade level by "ability".
If a child was not on grade level in Reading, they were placed in a class full of children who were also in the same place academically. If a child was not on grade level in Math, this same system of "sorting according to ability" took place. AND, if a child was Advanced in these two core subject areas, they were placed in a class with children of "like" ability. A child might even be in an advanced Reading class AND a fundamental Math class.
Their course curriculum matched their developmental level.
One great thing was, their teacher was focused ONLY on one level of curriculum. She/he became an "expert" in meeting the needs of the specific level of his/her students.
And then, something in America changed. A shift in our cultural consciousness.
Someone, somewhere felt it was more "equitable", less "damaging" to a child, to place ALL children, of ALL levels, in the core subject areas of Reading/Writing and Math...together...in the SAME classroom.
This was supposed to make a child feel better?
There is no child who is not "smart enough" to understand they are NOT keeping up with their peers academically. A child who constantly is NOT taught within their "zone of proximal development" (ZPD), and who is forced to take part in a classroom, day after day, where they have little or NO success, is not going to be "less damaged" and have "more equity", than a child who is taught specific developmentally appropriate skills-sets to stretch them, so they grow academically, gaining confidence as they are challenged at a level which both inspires and strengthens them.
Public schools are struggling with a re-run of the heterogenous classroom model, which exists primarily in elementary school ( middle and high school classes usually group students in courses, according to their academic abilities).
At the very time a child SHOULD BE focusing on gaining foundational skills in Reading, Writing, and Mathematics, too many children have the additional burden of not being able to access much of what they are taught. By the time many students reach junior high, they feel they are "dumb". They lose interest in school and perform poorly on tests. Many drop out, for this and other reasons, which are specific to the American public school system, not the system's teachers.
Of course, this is not the case in every classroom. There is research to support that a child who is "average" can be lifted up to higher levels of academic achievement, if they are placed in a classroom with children who are proficient and advanced. But, this does NOT work for children who are very low. Yet, this is a predominant classroom model in America.
There are instances where, as a result of certain demographic clusters, there will be schools and classrooms with relatively homogenous populations. But where there is a great disparity of academic abilities in a classroom, students who range from Advanced (gifted), Proficient, Basic, Below Basic, to Far Below Basic, there will be a teacher who will appear ineffective, and students who become frustrated with their school experience without ever realizing there IS another way for them to be taught.
Most modern American public schools just do not do it.
Another topic little discussed in political circles, is the fact that we have students who, just fifteen years ago would have been in a Special Education or Special Day class, mainstreamed into classrooms. And yes, they take the same tests the other children take at the end of the year.
Do you think China allows children who are "developmentally delayed" to participate openly in their national testing pools?
I think not.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) requires that at least 95% of learning disabled and students whose English is limited to be included in each states' yearly progress reports.
Where else in the world does such an education requirement exist? And if it does, are the teachers exclusively blamed when scores are "not acceptable"?
Politicians should consider THIS factor before bashing teachers. Students receive Special Education services and resources when there is a DISPARITY/discrepancy between their Reading and Math scores, high in Reading low in Math, or low in Reading and high in Math. This was not always the case.
If a child is very low in BOTH Math and Reading, the school district is not legally required to provide additional services. The child will be placed in a class with children at ALL levels and continue to receive the common core curriculum, at the same pace as their classmates (teachers try to differentiate instruction and "pull" small groups, and some programs exist at individual schools sites to specifically target these children, but it is never enough to simply slow the curriculum down for a child who is developmentally delayed), and at the end of the year, they will be tested.
Because these students will NOT be flagged as a Special Education student on their state test, their scores will be factored in with all of their peers. The national and state politicians, district administration, and principals will never know a student is severely developmentally delayed just by looking at the numbers on a teacher's class test results (there is not a place on the state test for details to be written about a child by their teacher). When the test scores are displayed in staff meetings and discussed by superiors, in regards to a specific developmentally delayed student, their teacher will be seen as ineffective, unable to reach the child...in a sense, a failure.
Heterogenous classrooms are not working well for teachers, students, or America.
