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 paintby-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 58. 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 Time
 Creating a School Climate
 Providing varying learning time
Providing Quality Time

“Students traveling through a six- sevenor 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’s
 Queen, (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-ofcourse 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 teacherstudent 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
Grouping
 Three 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 grouping
 XYZ grouping
 Heterogeneous 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.
