Criterios para la identificación y medición de la Brecha Digital

Although middle schools use a variety of practices in terms of how they group students for instruction, the most common practice appears to be some type of ability grouping (Mills, 1997). Oakes (1987) supported Mills’ (1997) claim that ability grouping is prevalent in middle schools. Mills (1997) further wrote that such grouping practices in secondary schools have been implemented despite the various harmful findings that have been reported in the research literature. Mills (1997) underscored a contradiction between research and practice with respect

to middle school; he claims there to be no known benefits of grouping students by ability in middle school with the possible exception of students who are considered accelerated in the area of mathematics.

Epstein and Mac Iver (1990) used data from a survey conducted by the John Hopkins Center for Research on Elementary and Middle Level Schools. The survey included participation from 1,753 middle schools. Findings revealed that over 40% of the schools used between-class grouping and more than 20% of schools placed students in classes based on their ability. According to a 1993 survey with the National Association of Secondary School Principals, 82% of middle schools that participated indicated use of some form of ability grouping for student placement (Valentine, Clark, Irvin, Keefe, & Melton, 1993). Epstein and Mac Iver (1990) argued that whole class ability grouping becomes more common as students proceed through middle school. With regard to specific subject areas, they reported ability grouping to be most frequent for grades five and six in math and reading. For grades seven through nine, ability grouping is most often used in math and English.

Later work by Loveless (1998) supported and expanded on Epstein and Mac Iver’s (1990) findings. Loveless (1998) stated that middle schools are most likely to group students by ability in some disciplines but not all disciplines. In particular, Loveless (1998) found that middle schools more frequently group students by ability in their mathematics and English classes. Placement in these two classes is typically based on district-created placement tests, prior performance, and/or teachers’ recommendations. Loveless (1998) further noted that parent input often influences student placement in middle school. In the areas of science and social studies placement in middle school, Loveless (1998) found the grouping of students to be done more heterogeneously by ability.

In terms of practices relative to grouping middle school students for English classes, Loveless (1998) provides detail with respect to how placement in those courses is determined. Specifically, he writes that it is not uncommon for middle schools to begin grouping by ability in English classes until seventh or eighth grade. Course offerings would include honors English classes for advanced students and remedial classes for students who have been determined to have low academic ability. He cites the scheduling of double reading or English periods as another practice of middle schools regarding the placement of students who are struggling academically (Loveless, 1998).

Unlike in English classes, middle schools begin to group students for mathematics starting in sixth or seventh grade (Loveless, 1998). Loveless (1998) found that tracking students by ability for mathematics begins by eighth grade. He identifies the onset of students taking an advanced class as usually being when they take a pre-algebra course before their grade level peers. Remedial mathematics courses are offered to students and usually have a curriculum that is based on basic arithmetic.

In addition to what research reports relative to the frequency of ability grouping practices in middle schools, other essential findings have been reported with regard to the impact of ability grouping in middle schools. Urdan, Midgley, and Wood (1995) worked for three years with a middle school that had previously assigned students to classes based on their ability. One of the key findings of their work was that grouping students by ability influences how teachers think about teaching. In another study of a middle school that abolished tracking students by ability by Roe and Radeburgh (1993), several positive occurrences were identified. Specifically, teachers reported less parental competition, positive social benefits, academic gains, and positive behavioral consequences (Roe & Radeburgh, 1993). Long-term effects of students who were

placed in math classes based on ability in middle school were studied by Hoffer (1992). Hoffer (1992) concluded that students who were grouped by ability in the lowest performing classes did not perform as well in high school math classes as their counterparts who were not grouped by ability in middle school. Furthermore, Hoffer (1992) contended that instruction, particularly the type of instruction delivered in the higher ability classes, would be more beneficial to students in the lower group than grouping by ability.

A possible benefit to ability grouping could be high achievement for “high” ability math students (Mills, 1997). However, in a study by Mason, Schroeter, Combs, & Washington (1992) high-achieving middle school math students benefited from being grouped heterogeneously. The high-achieving students did not demonstrate any regression in terms of problem solving and computation. They did however demonstrate a higher rate of performance with respect to their conceptual understanding in comparison to their peers from previous years who were grouped homogeneously by ability. More recent findings reveal that tracking students by ability continues to exist. Harris (2011) shares findings that suggest a rationale for why such practices still exist in middle schools. In a study involving six middle schools, Harris (2011) reports that tracking continues to exist as a response to student achievement. Specifically, teachers believe that tracking by ability helps students meet state standards. Secondly, Harris found political factors such as parental involvement heavily impacted student placement as a barrier to removing tracking by ability. Harris (2011) cited administrative concern with regard to losing support and resources from influential parents. Such a finding is supported by Loveless (1999). Third, the cultural norms that exist within a school that historically tracks by ability often prevents detracking. Lastly, Harris (2011) suggested lack of understanding as another obstacle for effectively moving away from tracking.