In a previous article I asked the question as to which set of subjects is more important for survival? For integrity of character? For one?s prospect for a future happy life? Is it these 5 or 6 formal CPE subjects or informal skills like singing, fishing, communicating, ability to team-up, to lead, etc? I concluded that there is more to life and living than school academic subjects! So can we still go about grouping children according to their performance in academic subjects alone? Or does wisdom lie in mixed-ability classes and mixed-ability schools?

In any situation, people are, as per the theory of random distribution, of ?mixed-ability?. Think of a busload of 60 passengers or a crowd of 20,000 at a political rally. Even in more special circumstances, this holds true, e. g. 200 people choosing to see the same film, 70 members in Parliament, or a class of 36 pupils in a village primary school. Furthermore, one must recognise, as per the theory of multiple intelligences, that one person who is rather dim in maths or languages can be very gifted in other aspects of human endeavour.

Hence a mixed-ability situation is not only as per nature but, if encouraged, can lead to tremendously beneficial interactions between those of different abilities. The immutable law of ecology is that there is richness only in diversity, not in mono-whatever. From the standpoint of pure efficiency, the ?groupe-de-niveau? is obviously better. That is why, universally, learners are grouped by age, in primary, secondary and tertiary as well as in technical and vocational institutions. Advanced training is obviously only possible with those who have mastered the previous level of knowledge and skills.

It is easy for students to get frustrated in a mixed ability class. Stronger students may feel held back, weaker students may feel pressured. The teacher may feel stressed. Hence systems resort to streaming (where students remain in ability-based classes - or even schools- for all learning) or to setting (where students are in different ability classes for some subjects). Mrs B. Flashman, the headmistress, used to practise setting in the QEC of the ?70s with remarkable success, particularly for English, Maths and Swimming, although many young teachers found the continual re-groupings rather tedious.

One powerful solution is therefore to provide differentiated instruction to students of different abilities and levels, while they socially work together in the same school and class. Many countries start clustering children according to ability at some point on the education ladder. (We do, in theory, as from Form I).

Not so, for example, in the US, where the rule is for teachers to successfully work with students of widely differing abilities, preparation and home environment in the same classroom. Historically, teachers have faced this dilemma since the days of the one-room schoolhouse, which mixed 6- to 16-year-olds. The solution then was differentiation and it is still valid. One negative result, however, is that, in the inter-country tests in Maths and Science, the US ranks close to last behind the likes of Singapore, Hong-Kong, Hungary, etc. The positive consequence is a much richer and diverse school life.

What true differentiation first requires is the realization by teachers that all learners vary in their readiness, interests and learning profiles. Differentiation is about offering options and not being punitive to those who work badly and piling on additional work on the high-flyers. Differentiation addresses classroom diversity as people exist in real life. Differentiation works at all age levels. Variable within-class ability grouping is the best way to allow high-flyers, in each field, to continue progressing and those who have fallen behind to recuperate.

How is this done? In mixed-ability classrooms, teachers do differentiation by: keeping the focus on concepts, emphasizing understanding not retention and reproduction of fragmented facts; making use of within-class, flexible grouping , based on readiness, interests, or learning styles. They use whole-group instruction for introducing ideas, planning and specially to share results; seeing themselves as guides. They help students set goals based on their learning profiles and personal interests and assess each individual pupil on growth and goal attainment.

How do readers of L?express (parents, pupils and pedagogues alike) feel about this question?

<B>Dr. Michael ATCHIA [email protected]</B>