One size fits all does not

Regular readers will know that I believe in developmentally appropriate teaching and learning which has a direct effect on grade or class placement. I disagree with putting children in classes based on random dates of birth which are unrelated to what a child can do and/or for whcih s/he is ready, leads to gaming the system through red-shirting and is a recipe for disaffection and a lack of engagement when a child is placed too "low" or too "high". So what is better?

Ability-grouping is hugely problematic, mostly because defining "ability" is so fraught. For example, is ability what a child can do (ie, reflecting prior experience, good or bad teaching, opportunities) or what a child is capable of doing (ie, reflecting future experience, potentially good teaching, opportunities)? Is ability defined by a single test ("high stakes") or a single type of test (multiple choice) or multiple tests of the same type or varied assessments over a short period of time or multiple and varied assessments over a period of time?

What effect do the instruments have on the results? What about teacher observations? What about the time of day or the say of the week or the week of the school year? What about assessment at year-end compared to assessment after the summer vacation?

Similarly of course, what is assessed? In math, is a child tested on circles, squares and triangles or on only one of these or on any one of these at random? The first would lead to huge, long and involved assessments, the second means a narrow curriculum and the third puts as much or more emphasis on luck as on "ability" which here would actually be knowledge.

This is where cultural factors can play an inordinate role. I heard the other day of a still widely-used US "cognitive" ability test which asks something like, "What should you do if you see someone assaulting an older person?": The answer which scored points was "call the police"; the research found that almost all African Americans answered with "do not call the police". Another example was, "What do snowdrops symbolize?" The answer which scored points was "spring" or "the end of winter". Almost no-one from the south or west US answered this question correctly.

Competency-grouping raises some of the same issues. Competencies are essentially skills with an observable and measurable standard, known to as a "deliverable". So typical competencies would be :

• count from 1 - 10
• count from 10 - 1
• count from 1 - 10 in twos. 

While this actually tests performance, it is still somewhat objective and an appropriate base for lesson and methodology planning. Competency.grouping like this does suggest or even support what should come in the next one or two or three steps.

However, what if Jo can do all these without hesitation and Suzy can do them but with pauses and Jimmy can do them all when he thinks he is not being overheard but not in front of his teacher and Jackie can do them but only with prompting? Do they demonstrate the same competencies? Should competencies have constraints attached?

• count from 1 - 10 without hesitation and without prompting in less than five seconds
• count from 1 - 10 without hesitation and without prompting in more than five seconds
• count from 1 - 10 with hesitation
• count from 1 - 10 with prompting

Yet neither this ability approach nor a competency approach is related to a child's age. Both reflect his/her previous experience and so placing a child in a class based purely on his/her birthdate is both unrelated and arbitrary. I believe it is inappropriate.

So what do I suggest?

For pre-school, I propose three levels : an entry level, an intermediate level and a pre-Grade One level. Typically these would be around ages 2.5 - 4, ages 3.5 - 5 and ages 4.5 - 6. The pre-requisites would be that the child is potty-trained and ready for pre-school eating able to follow routines and instructions, to share, to take turns and to wait atg a level appropriate for that stage of development.

Each level would have some general competencies required, for example liked to fine-motor development, but these would not be too onerous. The two main factors I required to move from entry to intermediate were (a) no longer needing to nap and (b) no longer having bathroom accidents.

For entry to elementary grades and above, I propose measuring applicants against defined competencies and some core knowledge typical of that grade in that school. For example, if my G3 students are reading Hamlet, then someone who is not able to read Hamlet would not be developmentally appropriate for that class.

This has two immediate implications. Firstly, children go through the same developmental stages but at different speeds thus re-grouping must be possible and must not be stigmatized. Secondly, while it reasonable for teachers to manage three distnct levels in a class, managing more than three is not and so any given program might not be appropriate for some students.

Of course, when I speak of any and all of this, I am also discussing school culture, and culture takes us back to mission.

I accept that there some problems with this which I will discuss later, however placing a student according to what is appropriate to his/her development is always best for the child, especially when compared to the lottery of his/her date of birth.

**Please leave your comments and questions below.**