The most important graph in education

Like most kids my age would have, I assumed that because I was in the advanced fourth-grade reading-class I was smarter than everyone else. That is, not only had I achieved more, but I also had more potential. I was going places.

I don’t remember ever taking a test. But I assumed that there was one and maybe I had forgotten about it. Or maybe there wasn’t, maybe there was some secret rubric that I had maxed out on due to my luck, pluck, and virtue. It didn’t matter. I had potential and I was going places and that was that.

Or maybe not.

A 1994 study led by Aaron Pallas compared the standardized test scores of first graders to their reading-group placement. The results were shocking.

One would have expected that the test scores for the advanced reading group would have been the highest, followed by the normal ability group, followed by the remedial reading group. Instead, Pallas found that the test scores of all three reading groups were virtually identical. Students in even the most advanced reading group had only a slightly greater chance of having greater than average test scores.

The implications here are huge. To quote from the study, “Ability grouping in classrooms has traditionally been viewed as a rational way for schools to organize instruction. There is a growing body of evidence, however, that (1) ability-group placements are fallible, in that students with similar levels of academic potential may be placed in different ability groups, and (2) that placement of children in different ability groups may heighten inequalities in children’s academic achievement.”

“We found that first-grade ability-group placement can have persistent effects on children’s achievement in school over a period of several years and may shape the expectations of children’s performance held by significant others, such as parents and teachers. Whether these effects are instructional, social, or institutional, they are real, and they have implications for children’s future schooling trajectories. […] Instructional grouping may have the unintended effect of increasing inequalities in educational outcomes, largely by creating inequalities in educational resources and rewards.”

That is, students who started off at exactly the same level of measured ability in first grade will have vastly different levels of ability by the end of high school. In my own experience I know that my peers in my advanced fourth-grade reading group were the same ones that got into the best colleges almost a decade later. Were we really smarter to begin with, or were we made smarter after being accidentally selected at random as a by-product of a broken system?

Pallas himself suggests the latter: “Children in higher-ranked reading groups were perceived by their parents and teachers as more competent than were similar children in low-ranked groups, often independent of their actual performance.”

Not to get all angsty, but I do often wonder how much of my identity– intelligence, personality, experiences, etc. – has nothing to do with anything intrinsic within me, but is rather the result of a series of stochastic events and selections.

That's what I like about being an entrepreneur; going forward I steer.

Pallas et al. “Ability Group Effects: Instructional, Social, or Institutional?” Sociology of Education 67 (1994). Fig. 1, p. 36.

Comments

[ThinkTwice]

Godin's blog brought me here, now I'm leaving.

My feedback: Understanding how early educational circumstances translate into future experience and opportunity is an interesting psychological subject, and relates to education reforms as well, however, for me, it’s just not a conversation I want from a "business" blog.

My first grade teacher announced to my parents, in my presence, that I was "slow." They moved their heads up and down in unison in what seemed to me as acknowledgment of and agreement to Ms. Vanhurkey’s considered opinion. So, I chose athletics as my place to shine and receive parental attention. It worked. My point is that everyone has their crosses to bear, path to choose and their own story to live. What matters is learning from experience and rewriting your story as you live it, some do some don’t.

The previous response referenced Outliers by MG, which I read. And I’ve read extensively on the challenges ahead in reforming our educational system, which I enjoy. But, there’s a time and a place for this conversation, and for me this blog isn’t it.

I wish you much success.

[Cris Cohen]

I think it is also an example of the idea that life / reality does not conform to any formulas. Anytime you try to create a system or an equation for things like this, the universe often throws in some unexpected variable. Or you get an unexpected result. On the one hand, this idea brings with it the fear of an unpredictable world. On the hand, it also means that the kid not chosen for the advanced reading class is just as likely to become a noted scholar, author, etc.

[Bob]

I completely agree with the idea that ability groupings contribute to an educational self-fulfilling prophecy. In fourth grade, I was not accepted into an accelerated learning program in my elementary school. The following year I was brought into the same program, and I suddenly felt smarter (and of course I worked harder to keep up with my peers.) As with you Alex, there was no test that I remember. The flip-side of the coin is, however, leaving a subset of kids very bored in the classroom if we don't teach to abilities.

My wife and I (honestly, mostly my wife) have chosen to home-school. We made this choice -- one that's absolutely not for everyone -- for a variety of reasons, but a welcome by-product is that we don't have to worry about ability groupings in our home (just sibling comparison, it's own unique form of sub-setting). We have one kid who is quite gifted in some areas, and doesn't do at all well on tests. I wonder where he would end up in the system?

Malcolm Gladwell addresses this exact phenomenon in his latest book. He takes as his example Canada's system of picking youth hockey leagues, pointing out that because the leagues are picked once a year in January, the kids that are older, even by a few months, have a huge advantage over those born in November. Then, unintended consequences kick in, and those in the better leagues get more practice time, play against better players, and end up better NOT because they were better to begin with, but because they were perceived to be better and rose to the occasion.

It's a worthy topic for discussion, and I hope there's a lot of it.