If you’re a skier and you’ve attended a ski school, you observe that prior to instruction, the ski instructors divide their students into three or more groups. The beginners are assigned to the “bunny hill” where they learn to navigate a simple slope and use a rope tow to return to the top of the hill. The intermediate skiers are taken to hills of moderate slope where they can gain practice in making turns and traversing the hill in a criss-cross pattern. The advanced skiers are taken to “black diamond” hills where they learn how to deal with steep inclines, moguls and challenging snow conditions. The reason for the different groups is obvious: members of these different groups have different instructional needs because they come with different skills. Forcing a top level skier to train on the bunny hill with the beginners prevents him or her from learning the skills they need to navigate the steep black diamond hills. Similarly, forcing a beginner to travers a black diamond hill would be both irresponsible and unproductive.
In academics, children come with different skill levels. The very important advantage of grouping children by ability is that it enables each child to receive instruction commensurate with his or her ability and level of competence. In this way, we empower them to achieve and learn at their optimum level. While this would seem to be a patently obvious plan for customizing education to meet the individual needs of each student, there are some who oppose streaming students by ability. Why would anyone recommend that a mathematically capable student, who has mastered arithmetic, be forced to work on the bunny hill of mathematics with those who are struggling to write numbers up to 100?
Today the quest for equity is rejecting the idea that humans have innate differences in ability and this is bringing about the cancellation of programs for the gifted. During 2021 and into 2022, the California Department of Education has been vetting its draft of the Mathematics Framework for California Public Schools: Kindergarten Through Grade Twelve. Throwing down the gauntlet in a challenge to the concept of giftedness the document asserts:
An important goal of the Framework is to replace ideas of innate mathematics “talent” and “giftedness” with the recognition that every student is on a growth pathway. There is no cutoff determining when one child is “gifted” and another is not.
In rejecting the concept of mathematical giftedness, The Framework proposes the cancellation of special programs for the gifted, contravening the 2008 recommendation of the U.S. Department of Education:
In the case of gifted students who are advanced in their skill and concept attainment and can learn new material at a much more rapid rate than their same-age peers, it is the professional judgment of those in gifted education that they need a curriculum that is differentiated (by level, complexity, breadth, and depth), developmentally appropriate, and conducted at a more rapid rate.
California is attempting to reduce the gap between the performance of minority students and others by putting the mathematically capable students on the bunny hill for instruction. The main disadvantage of not providing special streams (called tracking) for instruction is that our most capable children will not receive instruction commensurate with their abilities and will not be able to perform as well in STEM subjects as equally capable children in other nations. see: Why do US Students Lag in Math in Comparison with Other Nations?
However, in spite of its obvious advantages, tracking does have some disadvantages. Many argue that segregating students into groups by ability makes those in the lower groups feel inferior, resulting in demoralization. While this may be true in some cases, there is research showing that students often suffer greater loss of self-esteem when forced to learn in groups where superstars showcase their talents.
A disadvantage of acceleration, where a student is placed two or three grades above his or her age group, is the social disconnect that the accelerated student experiences. In some cases, the student, being younger and smaller is bullied by the older classmates. In other cases the student is less mature psychologically than the classmates and feels isolated.
Reporting on an interview with Steve Jobs, his biographer Walter Isaacson wrote:
Near the end of fourth grade, Mrs. Hill [his teacher] had Jobs tested. “I scored at the high school sophomore level” he recalled. Now that it was clear, not only to himself and his parents, but also to his teachers, that he was intellectually special, the school made the remarkable proposal that he skip two grades and go right into seventh; it would be the easiest way to keep him challenged and stimulated. His parents decided, more sensibly, to have him skip only one grade. … The transition was wrenching. He was a socially awkward loner who found himself with kids a year older.
Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos also suffered from bullying and social disconnect. This is the downside of tracking or acceleration and we may ask ourselves whether it was in their best interest to be placed in a gifted program or a later grade. The answer may be different for different people, but it would seem that Jobs, Bezos, and Musk, judged by the magnitude of their accomplishments, may have benefited from the experience.
