Content area
Full Text
The antitracking movement has suddenly become anti-ability grouping, resulting in serious side-effects for gifted students who currently are being served effectively in ability-grouped programs that consistently meet their needs. Closer scrutiny of the research frequently cited reveals commonly-held misinterpretations and misconceptions. Six commonly-held myths are examined and discussed in relationship to educators' efforts to provide the best instructional programs for all students, including those whose abilities place them at the upper end of the spectrum. Practical realities are emphasized in an effort to encourage schools to provide equality of opportunity rather than the same experiences for all. Consideration is given to serving all students more appropriately by overcoming the abuses of past practice and capitalizing on the knowledge that can be gained by careful examination of the literature and its implications for all students, including the gifted
Originally published in Roeper Review 16(1), September 1993, pp. 4-7.
Educational bandwagons are a dime a dozen. Educators want to be on the cutting edge of educational improvement and are concerned about excellence in education and about providing programs that help their students. The last thing any educator wants to do is to be responsible for educational decisions that are harmful to anyone, least of all to students who already have had too many disadvantages heaped upon them in their lives. Thus the pendulum swings again, moving from one extreme to another, typically without ample consideration of the impact of the latest trend in education on those students who benefited the most from some of the approaches being abandoned.
One recurring trend that is taking the educational world by storm is the antitracking movement. In the '90s, antitracking suddenly has become anti-ability grouping. The side effects of this trend are rippling throughout the schools, from widespread efforts to implement the Regular Education Initiative (R.E.I.) for students with learning handicaps to insidious attempts to eliminate programs for highly able or gifted students. In both cases, the motivation has been admirable; the concern is about the negative effects of locking certain students into unchallenging classes and locking them out of educational situations that stretch their minds. Unfortunately, all of the relevant research and its ramifications have not been thoroughly considered. For example, Slavin's research that recommended heterogeneous...