CLUSTER GROUPING IN THE BLOCK

SCHEDULEMEETING THE NEEDS OF A DIVERSE

POPULATION

Brian Hoelscher EDL 660 Dr. Watkins

Accountability and NCLB

NCLB pushing for accountability for all subgroups

Focus on the struggling learner. Pandina Scot, Callahan, and Urquhart

(2008): “question whether mandated policies push differentiation for the gifted to the background, emphasizing uniformity, and creating a cadre of paint-by-number teachers and cookie-cutter students” (p. 42)

Pandina Scot et al Cont.

“Content aligned with local, state, and national standards at a level of challenge matched to the learner’s current achievements and learning potential

Varied teaching strategies to promote cognitive engagement, authentic and open-ended discussion/enrichment activities” --(p. 43)

Accountability Movement Accountability movement with its

affiliation with high-stakes testing has created a barrier for practice and development of best-practice teaching and learning for gifted students

In other words, teachers are trying to teach the same way

Watkins and Sheng (2008) Exceeds in reading about the same level

from grades 3-5, but from 5-8, it declined by as much as half.

Exceeds in math drop by nearly 19 percent between grades 3-5 but an average 10 percentage gain between 5-8. Loss > Gain = Net Loss for math

Watkins and Sheng cont.

Low income and minority students hardest hit and underrepresented.

On average, the lower the SES, the lower the percentage of students scoring in the Exceeds category in a district

My Position

For middle-level learners, a growing research base points to a practice of cluster grouping of advanced learners, by subject, in a more flexible block schedule as an effective strategy for improving the achievement for all students, regardless of SES and ethnicity

Scheduling Time is limited commodity Canady and Rettig (1995) describe

three areas of concern with schedule:Providing Quality TimeCreating a School ClimateProviding varying learning time

Providing Quality Time

“Students traveling through a six- seven- or eight-period day encounter the same number of pieces of unconnected curriculum each day, with little opportunity for in-depth study”

Creating a School Climate Creates too many scheduled transitions,

short periods, lack of teacher-student relationships, and the need for “off core” classes to provide plan time for the teachers

Too many opportunities for misbehavior and off-task behavior

Varying Learning Time

“Carnegie Unit”—Traditional 45 minute class period

Students (and teachers) are “Prisoners of Time”

Schools slaves to credits and efficiency and innovation and fluidity are the casualties.

Acceleration is rigid and static

Block Scheduling

Reformers of the 80’s and 90’sQueen, (2000)“warned that the traditional

schedule did not provide enough time for individualized instruction, laboratory work and for remediation or enrichment”

These are exactly the skills Common Core is demanding from Teachers and Students.

Opposition to Block

Bowman (1998) states: “ empirical verification for the alleged effectiveness of block scheduling is meager and conflicting; block scheduling does not appear to rest on any meaningful research base”

Opposition to Block cont.

Most studies done at the High School Level—struggle to change instruction

Flynn, et al (2005) showed no significant difference between traditional and block but stated that, despite having more time, teachers in block did not use the time to vary their instructional practices

Continuing to lecture for 180 minutes is ineffective and, in some cases, harmful

Opposition to Block cont.

Block schedules are often well received by stakeholders but researchers found overuse of lecture in at least 30 percent of the classes

Does Time in the Block Matter?

Lawrence and McPherson (2000) found:“Another issue may be the length of time the students

were on the block schedule. Shortt and Thayer (1997) indicated that the first year on the block schedule is very demanding and many teachers do not cover as much content as they did in a traditional schedule. Since end-of-course tests are designed to measure what has been learned throughout the entire course, perhaps more content was assessed than is normally assessed with teacher made tests. Therefore a time factor could have contributed to the traditional mean scores being higher than the block mean scores” (p. 4)

Does Time in the Block Matter?

Mattox, Hancock & Queen (2005) found a similar phenomenon. No gain overall in the first year of the block, but saw significant gains in years two and three.

Significant gains beginning in year one, however, in the low income/minority populations

Time and Low-Income and Minority Populations Gill (2011) found “significant differences

were shown in the percentage of black and hispanic students earning pass/advanced scores on the math and reading SOL Test for Region IV in Virginia.”

“A larger percentage of Black and Hispanic students earned pass/advanced scores in the A/B block-scheduled schools than in traditional schools”

Time and Low-income and Minority Populations Block schedule allows for better teacher-

student relationships Teachers can utilize behavior checklists

as early as Kindergarten to identify and support gifted students

Performance tasks were found by VanTassle-Baska et al to identify up to 14 percent more low-income and 12 percent more African American gifted students in the population.

Block and Teaching

Schultz (2000)“Block scheduling does offer the flexibility

needed for gifted and talented students to soar in their learning, but it is teachers who determine if the flexibility inherent in the system is used productively or wasted”

Staff development is crucial to helping teachers make the changes necessary for block to be a successful practice.

Cluster Grouping

First study in 1919 Whipple found a positive effect of grouping students by achievement in math in 5th and 6th grade students

Mixed Results in studies since then.

Cluster Grouping Opponents Mainly point to inequality in XYZ

GroupingThree Groups High (X), Middle (Y) and (Z)

Low Kulik (1992) found that Y and Z group learned

about the same as heterogeneous grouping, but X group outperformed equivalent pupils from mixed classes by at least one month on a grade equivalent scale

Self esteem of lower groups slightly higher, self esteem of high group slightly lower.

Self-Esteem differences Explained Boaler, Wiliam, and Brown (2000)

About 1/3 of students taught in highest group disadvantaged because of high expectations, fast pace lessons and pressure to succeed

This particularly affected the most able girls

Self-Esteem differences Explained Boaler, Wiliam, and Brown (2000)

Students from a range of groups were severely disaffected by the limits placed upon their attainment

Students reported they gave up on math when they discovered their teachers have been preparing them for examinations that gave access to only the lowest grade

Self-Esteem differences Explained Boaler, Wiliam, and Brown (2000)

Social Class had influenced setting decisions.

Significant number of students experienced difficulties working at the pace of the particular set in which they were placed.

Goldilocks syndrome—Too slow, Too fast, Just right—Resulting in anxiety

Overall, gains from high were negated by the losses of lows with net zero effect

What is the Crux of the Argument? The issue is not about cluster grouping per

se, but, rather, the inequality inherent in grouping all “Low Achieving” students together in terms of their self esteem and access to high expectations and quality instruction.

Kulik showed grouping is not inherently harmful. Low expectations for lower students and ineffective teaching strategies is what is showing up in the research.

A False Dichotomy Opponents seek to create only two choices in

terms of groupingXYZ groupingHeterogeneous Grouping

One can stipulate that XYZ grouping is not as effective as Heterogeneous grouping (although this is not settled)

It is clear that the achievement of cluster grouped gifted/talented/advanced students is consistently and significantly better than heterogeneous classes

Grouping Gifted

Need instruction at a level and pace as well as conceptual complexity commensurate with their advanced levels of ability and achievement

Heterogeneous grouping and cooperative learning leads to lower motivation as well as poorer attitudes toward school.

Grouping should be flexible, not rigid

Lessons Learned

Block leads to a flexible time period in which teachers can correctly identify and meet the instructional needs of gifted students.

Staff development on pacing should be utilized to make sure teachers can make the transition to instructional practices that make block successful

Lessons, Cont.

Gifted/Talented/Advanced students should be cluster grouped to ensure these students are taught in the way they need to be taught to maximize their potential.

All students should be able to move in and out of gifted programs utilizing varied measures of achievment

Lessons Cont.

Students who are grouped as gifted should be supported academically and emotionally to offset the anxiety that can result from a more rigorous program

Teachers make the most difference in the success of any program. What a teacher puts into their lessons and activities will be what they see as results.