In Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis for June of 2008, Joseph P. Robinson of Stanford University reported the results of a study showing that kindergartners from Hispanic backgrounds who received reading instruction in groups based on ability had better outcomes than their peers in conditions where students are not grouped by ability. Professor Robinson found that Hispanic children from homes where English is not the primrary language benefit from ability grouping in kindergarten and first grade. Ability grouping reduced the difference in achievement between these Hispanic students and their White peers. However, the benefits for the Hispanic students in kindergarten faded during first grade unless the children had ability grouped instruction during first grade.
Professor Robinson explained that by “ability grouping” he was referring to creation within classrooms of groups of students who have similar relative achievement, not assignment of students to classrooms by level of achievement (i.e., “tracking”). This is about creating smaller groups of students (e.g., aves rioja, verde, y azul) so that the teacher can focus instruction more closely on their needs rather than teaching to the middle of the entire class.
Using data from the kindergarten sample of the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study (ECLS-K), Professor Robinson followed thousands of children from backgrounds, some from Hispanic households in which languages other than English was the primary language spoken and some from households where English was the primary language spoken; at the beginning of kindergarten, students in the former group have the lowest level of reading achievement of any ethnic group. He found that those who were in classrooms where students were grouped by ability more frequently were students who had higher performance in the spring of their kindergarten year and, if they also received ability-grouped instruction in first grade, the reading achievement gap between Whites and the students from non-English speaking homes closes significantly more.
Ability grouping is sometimes thought to exacerbate inequality by increasing achievement gaps; however, ability grouping may in fact benefit a fast growing and often marginalized student population: children from non-English-speaking home environments. The level-appropriate, small-group instruction received in reading ability groups may be particularly beneficial to these language-minority children, who are not regularly exposed to English at home. Focusing on Hispanics, who make up the majority of language-minority students, the author examined this hypothesis through difference-in-differences estimation techniques in a hierarchical linear model framework. Ability grouping in reading during kindergarten was significantly associated with greater benefits for language-minority Hispanic students relative to other students. However, this benefit faded during the summer and first grade, unless grouping continued in first grade. These findings are robust to alternative specifications and suggest that differentiated instructional strategies upon school entry may be an effective, relatively low cost tool to combat the achievement gap faced by a fast growing segment of students.
Robinson, J. P. (2008). Evidence of a differential effect of ability grouping on the reading achievement growth of language-minority Hispanics. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30, 141-180
Link to the publicly available abstract of Professor Robinson’s study. Related content on Teach Effectively: Research guidance for literacy instruction for ELL students.
Sphere: Related Content
Okay, but then what? You are talking about kindergardeners and First Grade students. In isolation this sounds good, but it has been my observation as a lower-track high school English teacher that once tracked, students have a hard time growing out of the “low” label. I have met students who are incredibly bright and perfectly fluent in English in our lower track English classes in 11th grade. When I ask them about it, they say they were just put into these classes year after year. I understand we can say that we need to hold guidance counselors accountable, but in reality, the path of least resistance will often prevail. And, quite frankly, we know that in many cases laziness at best, and unfair bias at worst, will sadly come into play. So we are left with a very narrow specific benefit to early tracking resulting in a “rail roading” of some perfectly able and potentially high-achieving students into a life of medeocrity or worse. Does the research follow untracked students into later school years to see if they would overcome the problems caused by language anyway? In other words, does this early struggle with language lead to permanent under achievement, or once past that hurdle, and we all know children pick up language incredibly fast, do they achieve or not achieve at a statistically normal rate? And has the reasearcher considered that giving them extra help in Kindergarden, rather than letting them struggle and develop the language, is exactly why they do worse in First Grade?
It makes sense to me. If you have an extraordinary reader with someone who barely speaks english, there’s a good chance that kid will get made fun of or try everything in his power to not read so he won’t get made fun of. They may have had better outcomes in grouping by ability, but did they learn as much?