Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutExecutive Summary of Approach to Mathematics Studies 1 MEMORANDUM Date: December 4, 2017 TO: Superintendent Tom Brymer, Honorable President Laura Wheat and Board of Trustees Members FROM: Dr. Mechelle Bryson, Executive Director SUBJECT: Policy Analysis and Recommendations Related to Upper PYP Mathematics Instruction “For several decades, researchers have documented the effects of tracking students into segregated classrooms according to perceived ability or achievement. Whether known as tracking, sorting, streaming, or ability grouping, an expansive body of literature conclusively shows tracking has been harmful, inequitable, and an unsupportable practice” (Mathis, 2013). Background Over recent months, the question has arisen about the value of ability grouping known as tracking in the upper Primary Years Programme (PYP) mathematics classes at Westlake Academy. Other questions have surfaced regarding differentiation and/or enrichment in the classroom. For these reasons, Superintendent Brymer requested that the issues surrounding these questions be investigated and appropriate recommendations be made. In response, the Academy’s administrative staff has re-examined the practice of tracking to determine its place in an International Baccalaureate (IB) World School. This position paper is designed to summarize the findings of the Academy’s investigation. The Academy’s administrative team approached this investigation with an open mind and actively challenged long held beliefs regarding tracking and ability grouping. Through the evaluation of peer reviewed research and educational experts in the field combined with extensive conversations with stakeholders, the administrative team determined ability grouping does not align with a transdisciplinary approach to education nor does it produce long term benefits for students. Defining Relevant Terms In an effort to create a common vocabulary that leads to a common understanding, the following terms have been defined: • Ability grouping is “defined as a practice that places students into classrooms or small groups based on an initial assessment of their levels of readiness or ability (Kulik, 1992). 2 • Tracking is “the practice of assigning students to instructional groups on the basis of ability” (Hallinan, 1996, 1994). “The term tracking refers to a method used by many secondary schools to group students according to their perceived ability, IQ, or achievement levels. Students are placed in high, middle, or low tracks in an effort to provide them with a level of curriculum and instruction that is appropriate to their needs” (Loveless, 2002). • Flexible grouping is “an instructional strategy where students are grouped together to receive appropriately challenging instruction. True flexible grouping permits students to move in and out of various grouping patterns, depending on the course content. Grouping can be determined by ability, size, and/or interest” (www.nagc.org/index.aspx). It is a fluid and dynamic process. It is not fixed. • Differentiation is “a teaching philosophy based on the premise that teachers should adapt instruction to student differences. Rather than marching students through the curriculum lockstep, teachers should modify their instruction to meet students' varying readiness levels, learning preferences, and interests. Therefore, the teacher proactively plans a variety of ways to 'get it' and express learning” (Tomlinson, 1999). Differentiated instruction is not worksheet driven. It is the process of understanding the differences and similarities of each learner and, in doing so, gathering data that informs the next steps in instruction. Those next steps may vary from student to student. It is important to note that ability grouping and tracking are used interchangeable in the literature review in most cases. For the purpose of this paper, these two terms are synonymous. In contrast, the term flexible grouping is not interchangeable with tracking and ability grouping. The instructional practice of flexible grouping is a best practice that is encouraged at the Academy. Who Are We? We are an IB World School that offers the continuum of IB programs. Chartered to provide the IB continuum, the Academy has a fiduciary responsibility to the IB. As such, the Academy is committed to the standards and practices found within the IB framework and to the integration of these standards and practices with the State’s curriculum requirements. According to the IB, “PYP schools do not practice streaming or setting of students on a continuous basis, for example, gifted classes or continuous pull-out for support” (Broadening the interpretation of PYP Requirement C3.1.b Information Brief 2017). On the other hand, transdisciplinary learning … allows for short-term grouping where the students are regularly regrouped as the content of the learning changes (In Making the PYP Happen Manual, 2009). This approach, known as flexible grouping, allows for the grouping and regrouping of students to ensure each learner is both supported and challenged. Within the PYP, teaching and learning are executed through the Units of Inquiry. These Units of Inquiry are designed through a transdisciplinary approach to learning which, according to the IB, dissolves the limitations of traditional educational practices by embracing a constructivist approach to learning organized within the context of real- 3 world problems or themes (In Making the PYP Happen Manual, 2009). In other words, the PYP designs learning around six transdisciplinary themes. All core subjects are taught through this lens in an effort to deepen the complexities of students’ understanding of the content being explored. It is of paramount importance that the Academy aligns their practices with the IB philosophy. It is equally important that the Academy adopts policies, practices and procedures that support and deepen the execution of the IB standards and practices. What Is Tracking and Is Tracking a Best Practice? For clarification purposes, tracking is defined as “the practice of assigning students to instructional groups on the basis of ability” (Hallinan, 1996, 1994). It is basically the practice of sorting and ranking students to determine placement in a track of study. Historically, tracking has been an entrenched practice in American schooling for nearly a century (Futrell & Gomez, 2008). Originally, secondary schools’ assigned learners to one of three tracks, academic, general, or vocational tracks, designed to prepare students for college or careers. Over time, this practice has been replaced by course levels, such as advanced, honors, regular, or basic courses. “These course levels continue to be referred to as tracks, with the regular and higher-level courses loosely equivalent to the academic track and the basic and lower courses loosely equivalent to the general and vocational tracks” (Hallinan, 1996, 1994). Tracking was “initially touted as a way of tailoring instruction to the diverse needs of students, tracking has instead become a way to stratify opportunities to learn, limiting the more beneficial opportunities to high-track students and thereby denying these benefits to lower-tracked students. This generally plays out in a discriminatory way, segregating students by race and socio-economic status” (Mathis, 213). In recent years, John Hattie has investigated the variables that have an impact on student achievement and has calculated the numeric effect size of numerous learning strategies or programs. His work has determined that .40 is the hinge point for effectiveness. Any variable that has an effect size of .40 or better impacts student achievement to a significant degree. In regards to tracking, he found that it has “minimal effects on learning outcomes and profound negative equity effects” (Hattie, 2015, 2009). In fact, his groundbreaking meta-analysis concluded that tracking has a near zero effect size and is a detrimental practice that does not support high expectations for all students. Moreover, the research on heterogeneous (“untracked” or “detracked”) grouping noted a measurable positive correlation with student achievement. It is important to note that Finland has long used heterogeneous grouping as a way to promote high achievement among all its students (Mathis, 2013). The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) report explained, “In countries where [students] are divided into tracks based on their abilities, overall performance is not enhanced” (Mathis, 2013). Despite the best of intentions, the bottom line is that student achievement is not improved by the practice of tracking. The Academy acknowledges that the outcome of the literature review is counterintuitive. At face value, tracking should benefit all groups. With that said, the literature review 4 asserts otherwise. The practice of tracking has a low effect size on student achievement based on the following: • Tracking creates unhealthy competition by creating social stratification (Wheelock, 1992). • Student placement in tracking pathways is often based on a subjective view of intelligence. In other words, tracking fails to acknowledge true and varied intelligences (Wheelock, 1992). • Tracking decisions are based upon non-academic criteria such as behavior (Boaler, 2011). • Tracking increases the achievement gap. Students in lower groupings often receive lower quality instruction (NEA Resolutions B-16, 1998, 2005). • Tracking leads to student self-labeling that results in decreased expectations from various stakeholders including the student (Wheelock, 1992). • Tracking is static. Once students enter a track, the student too often remains in that track for the duration of their academic career (Oakes, 2005). On the other hand, de-tracking has a clear positive impact on learning. In fact, “de- tracking opens new academic opportunities for students” (Rubin, 2006). This finding is corroborated by recent studies that revealed that learners in heterogeneous settings in mathematics classes outperformed those tracked. "Many parents support ability grouping because they think it is advantageous for high attaining children…But a recent study of grouping in the US showed that the system benefited students at high and low levels and the high attaining students were the most advantaged by the mixed ability grouping, because they had opportunities to learn work in greater depth” (Boaler, 2007). Consequently, schools that approach learning from a de-tracking perspective are more likely to create cultures of high expectations for all. In fact, studies have found that students in these de-tracked environments took more advanced classes and passed courses at significantly higher rates (Boaler, 2007). It is important to note that the IB is a continuum of programs that do not support tracking. In fact, the IB has written that, “regardless of which teacher leads the unit of inquiry, collaborative planning and subject integration remain requirements, as does the expectation that continuous streaming and setting does not happen in a PYP school” (Broadening the interpretation of PYP Requirement C3.1.b Information Brief 2017). This belief centers around the IB’s commitment to the transdisciplinary approach to teaching and learning. The practice of ability grouping prevents the Academy’s ability to deliver a transdisciplinary approach to all students or at the very least weakens the delivery thereof. What Should We Do? Flexible grouping, when used appropriately, works. According to meta-analysis, students who were grouped by abilities and/or readiness within a class for reading were able to make up to an additional “half of a year’s growth in reading” (Puzio & Colby, 2010). 5 It is important to note that flexible grouping is not tracking. Flexible grouping is the practice of grouping students for guided instruction that changes based on formative assessment data. It is dynamic; not static. In other words, groupings vary based upon real time data. The Academy believes that the “best practice” in the upper PYP math instruction is to utilize flexible groupings within the class to group students based upon the strand of mathematics under investigation or the PYP transdisciplinary themes. Although this approach is utilized by teachers throughout the IB with success, moving forward, the Academy will add additional support to Grade 5. Flexible grouping will be utilized on Tuesdays and Thursdays from 8:15am - 9:30am for enrichment purposes through a push- in and pull-out approach. From November 27 through December 8, 2017, the mathematics specialist will team teach with classroom teachers in order to build learning relationships with all students and to measure the student attitudes and abilities of learners in mathematics. Rod Harding (PYP Principal), Alison Schneider (IBPYP Coordinator), Mrs. Nicole Bauer (Mathematics Specialist) and Grade 5 Teachers will work collaboratively to design authentic engagement designed to enrich learning for students who are achieving at advanced levels. Collaboration between the Grade 5 teachers and the mathematics specialist will take place weekly on one of the Grade 5 planning times. The identification of students will be determined by: • Ongoing Written Assessments, Classroom Checklists, Mathematics Notebook Writing, and Mathematics Inventories. • Benchmarks at the Beginning, Middle and End of the Year. • Data driven dialogue between the math specialist and classroom teachers. • Students ability to use and connect PYP concepts of form, function, causation, change, connection, perspective, responsibility and refection. • Students ability to incorporate ‘Bloom’s Taxonomy and IB MYP Command Terms: Higher Order Thinking’ (see chart below). 6 Students selected for pullout and push-in enrichment will have the following attributes: • Learners who continually use their prior knowledge by confronting and developing their earlier conceptions and constructs of mathematical understanding. 
 • Learners exploring and re-exploring mathematical concepts for appreciation of ideas that transcend disciplinary boundaries to work towards a deeper conceptual understanding as they approach those concepts from a range of perspectives within the central idea and line of inquiry. 
 • Learners using concepts to support and structure their inquiries, providing a context in which students can understand and, at the same time, acquire essential knowledge, skills and attitudes in mathematics. 
 • Learners who construct meaning through higher level thinking and apply their mathematical knowledge to new and unfamiliar situations. 
 7 Conclusion Within the context of this investigation, the Academy has examined Carroll and Keller ISD’s respective mathematics programs and their tracking structures for math. It is evident that they are able to do tracking in math because they do not utilize the IB transdisciplinary framework. The bottom line is that Westlake Academy is an IB World School and has an obligation to foster and sustain the standards and practices of the IB. It is the Academy’s position that the practice of tracking disrupts a teacher’s ability to deliver a true transdisciplinary program of study. In addition, it is the belief of the Academy that tracking provides no significant advantages to students and that mixed ability grouping (i.e. flexible grouping) does. Overall, the instructional rigor found within the IB provides students with a quality education that supersedes that of our local counterparts and easily outweighs any relative merits found in the conventional approach of tracking. 8 Work Cited Boaler, J. (2007). University of Sussex. "Grouping Kids By Ability Harms Education, Two Studies Show." ScienceDaily, 21 September 2007. Boaler, J., and D. Wiliam. 2001. “Setting, Streaming and Mixed-ability Teaching.” In Becoming a Teacher, edited by J. Dillon and M. Maguire, 2nd ed., 173–181. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Futrell, M. & Gomez, J. (2008). How Tracking Creates a Poverty of Learning. Educational Leadership. 65: 74-78. Hallinan, Maureen T. 1994. “Tracking: From theory to practice.” Sociology of Education 67(2): 79-84. Hallinan, Maureen T. 1996. Track mobility in secondary school. Social Forces, 74(3): 983-1002. Hattie, J. (2015) What Doesn’t Work in Education: The Politics of Distraction, Pearson. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York, NY: Routledge, 90. IBO. (2017). Broadening the interpretation of PYP Requirement C3.1.b Information Brief. IBO. (2009). Making It Happen in the PYP. Peterson House, Malthouse Avenue, Cardiff Gate. Kulik J. A. (1992). An analysis of the research on ability grouping: Historical and contemporary perspectives. Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Loveless, Tom, 2002. The Tracking and Ability Grouping Debate, Thomas Fordham Foundation. NASSP, 2004, Breakthrough High Schools: You Can Do It Too, Reston,VA Mathis, W. (2013). Moving Beyond Tracking. National Education Policy Center at the University of Colorado Boulder. Oakes, J. (2005). Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality (2nd edition). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Puzio, K., & Colby, G. T. (2010, March). The effects of within class grouping on reading achievement: A meta-analytic synthesis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness (SREE), Washington, DC. Rubin, B. (2006). Detracking and heterogeneous grouping. Theory Into Practice, 45(1). Wheelock, A. (1992). Crossing the tracks: How “untracking” can save America's schools. New York: The New Press.