kitchen table math, the sequel: ability grouping in Singapore

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

ability grouping in Singapore

The other key factor in preserving academic quality [during 17 years of declining SAT scores 1964-1980] was the practice of grouping students by ability in as many subjects as possible The contrast was stark: schools that had “severely declining test scores” had “moved determinedly toward heterogeneous grouping” (that is, mixed students of differing ability levels in the same classes), while the “schools who have maintained good SAT scores” tended “to prefer homogeneous grouping.”
The Other Crisis in American Education
by Daniel Singal


Singapore, a country whose students have consistently scored above most others in international assessments such as the Third International Math and Science Study (TIMSS), credits ability grouping as one of the key factors in its students' academic success.

Cheri Pierson Yecke, conversations with Chan Jee Kun and Poon Chew Leng, officials with the Singapore Ministry of Education, September 9, 2002.
The War Against Excellence: The Rising Tide of Mediocrity in America's Middle Schools p. 99


Addressing Equity: Curriculum Standards and Support For the Slower Mathematics Student

The topic structure in Singapore’s framework is efficient because topics are not taught and retaught as students move through the primary grades. Instead of repeating topics that students have already learned, teachers simply reintroduce them as a foundation on which to build new mathematical content. This practice, however, may not be suitable for students who have more difficulty with mathematics. The Singapore system recognizes that students who have trouble with mathematics may not attain mastery by following Singapore’s regular program of mathematics instruction and that these students may need special assistance to attain competence.

Beginning in grades 5 and 6, Singapore identifies its weaker students on the basis of a general examination of mathematics and language competency. These students receive special assistance and are taught according to a special fifth- and sixth-grade mathematics framework. This special framework mandates that students in the slower track
  • receive approximately 30 percent more mathematics instruction than students in the regular track, and
  • be exposed to the same mathematical content as students in the regular track, although at a slower pace.
The mathematics framework for students needing compensatory assistance adds review material to strengthen students’ understanding of previously taught content. For example, topics on numbers and geometry taught in grade 4 are repeated at a faster pace in grade 5. The introduction of some new concepts such as ratios, rates, and averages, which are normally introduced in grade 5, are delayed until grade 6 for the weaker students (Ministry of Education, 2001a). What is important, however, is that because slower students spend extra time studying mathematics, topics usually taught in grades 5 and 6 do not have to be completely sacrificed to make room for repetition.6

To support the framework for slower students, Singapore has developed a Learning Support Program to help educators identify these students and provide them with extra help (Ministry of Education 2003c). Mathematics Support Teachers (MST), who receive on-the-job supervision and specialized training to ensure that they are professionally competent, deliver compensatory assistance.

In the United States, we expect all students to meet the standards in state frameworks, but the standards do not help teachers address the needs of slower students. In fact, U.S. standards do not acknowledge that students learn at different rates. No Child Left Behind addresses the needs of failing schools, but it does not directly require that failing students receive help. Although some research evidence supports the belief that students benefit when the curriculum is adjusted to match their ability levels (Loveless, 1999), a distinct alternative curriculum would raise concerns in the United States about potential harm to students from ability grouping. Singapore’s approach differs from traditional ability grouping in that Singapore establishes a framework that requires students to master the same content as other students, not a watered-down curriculum as often happens in U.S. ability-grouped classrooms. Singapore also provides extra assistance from an expert teacher.

What the United States Can Learn from Singapore's World-Class Mathematics System (and what Singapore can learn from the United States): An Exploratory Study (pdf file)
American Institutes for Research

January 28, 2005
pp. 34-35

Same content, different speed, good teachers.


stagnation at the top - Fordham report
Tracking: Can It Benefit Low Achieving Children?
Linda Valli on tracking in 5 Catholic high schools, 1
Linda Valli on tracking in 5 Catholic high schools, 2
"school commitment" in Valli's study of tracking in Catholic high schools

7th grade depression starts in 1st grade

ability grouping in Singapore
characteristics of schools where SAT scores did not decline
The Other Crisis in American Education by Daniel Singal
Hiding in Plain Sight: grouping & the achievement gap
tracking: first random-assignment study

SAT equivalence tables
SAT I Individual Score Equivalents
SAT I Mean Score Equivalents

chickens have come home to roost
the deathless meme of the high performing school
Allison on the naturals

13 comments:

Unknown said...

In the US too many students experience a middle school math curriculum that doesn't include authentic algebra, or really even pre-algebra for that matter. By the time they get to high school and have an opportunity to learn algebra, even when they experience success, they are already behind where they should have been had they been grouped by ability in the 5th or 6th grade.

(They were probably bored stiff throughout middle school...)

If we would assess their abilities earlier, remediate as needed and accelerate those that are ready, we would have many more students entering math/sci fields.

Many parents don't realize that it must start in 5th and 6th grade...and the schools certainly won't tell them because they aren't not prepared to deal with it. It's time to get ready! :D

Catherine Johnson said...

Many parents don't realize that it must start in 5th and 6th grade

YES YES YES!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Thread hijack alert!

Does anyone know anything about Reasoning Mind? Just ran across an article today.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/5802701.html

"Based on the Russian curriculum written in the 1930s and '40s...

"Unlike a traditional classroom, Reasoning Mind classes allow students to work at their own pace. One child can be practicing subtraction, while another has moved on to fractions. Children don't have to be embarrassed if a certain lesson trips them up and requires more remediation.

"Children are forced to master one lesson before they try another."

Catherine Johnson said...

Hi googlemaster!

Well, as you probably know, I'm a fan of thread hijacks.

But this one is a winner.

Heading over there now. (Yes, I could be revising the cow chapter --- but what the hey---)

Catherine Johnson said...

Just looked.

It's WAY past time for me to get a post up about the Keller plan.

Catherine Johnson said...

btw, "programmed instruction" worked, too. You can still buy some programmed instruction books at Amazon. I bought a programmed instruction book on trigonometry! (Haven't used it yet.)

Catherine Johnson said...

Together, the family decided to harness their strengths to create a nonprofit program called Reasoning Mind, designed to get elementary students excited about math.

That, for me, is a red flag.

Education reforms in this country chronically emphasize the need to get kids excited about whatever it is they're studying.

It's certainly a good thing to be excited by the material you're studying. However, getting-students-excited seems usually to be a variant of the "opportunity to learn" approach to education.

Instead of focusing on learning, this approach focuses on the student: on making the student want to learn. Therefore, once he wants to learn, he will learn.

Not true.

A student who wants to learn quickly stops wanting to learn when confronted with bad curricula and teaching.

Catherine Johnson said...

I've got the Engelmann article on student motivation - will post parts of it.

iirc, it was entirely about making sure the content you're asking students to learn is something they actually can learn given their background knowledge and skills.

Unknown said...

It seems to me that one of the reasons that Reasoning Mind may be beneficial is precisely because it enables students who are ready to proceed in their studies. They don't have to wait until the entire (heterogenous)group is ready.

One other thought on ability grouping--
Districts vary greatly on grade requirements to proceed to algebra. (Ranging from 65% to 85% in my area)

How would a student who maintained an 80% in pre-algebra throughout the year perform in that same course again the following year?

They may ace it the second time around, but their grades could also slip just as easily from sheer boredom!

How much of the ability grouping formula is meant to ensure success for the student, rather than ease for the next teacher?

I don't know...

Anonymous said...

Are your district's pre-algebra grades actually based on content?

Up here,only 1/3 of the math grade is based on mastery of content via quizzes and tests. 1/3 is homework completion and submission, and the other 1/3 is conduct. All projects have app. 20% subjective grading for 'effort'and 'penmanship'.Honors selection -- entry into the college prep math stream -- is not considered if the sixth grade math score is lower than a 95 for the first two quarters, as the students are adjusting to middle school.

It's entirely possible to know one's math yet be barred from the honors stream because of factors normal to a pre-teen's emotional and neurological development.

Unknown said...

lgm makes some very good points...

I'm sure that there are many subjective factors going into our percentages, just as is your case.

It would probably be better if the students had an opportunity to take an aptitude test in the 5th and 6th grades. Then, if their class grades in pre-algebra and algebra did not reflect their aptitude levels, some intervention could make a difference a that point and keep them on track for college prep studies.

Catherine Johnson said...

It's entirely possible to know one's math yet be barred from the honors stream because of factors normal to a pre-teen's emotional and neurological development.

same here

C. wasn't eligible for Junior Honor Society because his grades are too low.

The reason his grades are too low is that he took accelerated math & Earth Science in 8th grade.

That makes him not Honorable.

Catherine Johnson said...

Amazingly enough, he apparently does know a fair amount of math.

Based in the tests he's taken recently (will get a post up about this).