Guest Editorial

Guest Editorial some questions concerning ability grouping Many programs for hearing-impaired students group students according to ability. Some serious questions should be asked before this practice is followed. The older the student, the more sense ability grouping makes. On the high school level, certain students are ready for advanced chemistry; others are still struggling to learn basic science concepts. In a similar way, some students can handle advanced literature; others have not mastered the rudiments of the English language . Thus, to attempt to combine students of greatly different academic ability levels in the same class at the high school level is usually a mistake. However, when grouping younger deaf children there are other factors to consider. The first of these factors is the confusion of ability with socially acceptable behavior. Those who have behavior problems are often grouped in lower ability classes. This grouping can create or magnify problems in several ways. First, students who have behavior problems are not necessarily lower in academic ability or in language levels. To place them in lower functioning classes simply because of behavior problems makes little sense. Second, if several children with major behavior problems in a school are grouped in separate classes, the Rosenthal effect all too often holds; students quickly sense and intuitively know that they are in a class of those with behavior problems and proceed to meet the high level of disruptive behavior expected of them. Another factor to consider when grouping young deaf students is their language ability. If we learn language through modeling, through being exposed to language, does it make sense to put deaf students with the least amount of language together in one class? Would it not be better, especially on the preschool and elementary levels, to mix the students with lower language levels with those with higher levels? This mixture would expose the students with lower levels to a richer language environment. Such grouping could help the student with a lower level to improve language skills while not impeding the language development of his or her classmates. The following guidelines to ability grouping are suggested: 1. Take great care in analyzing why certain staff members wish to place a student in a low ability group. Be sure that disruptive behavior is not being confused with lack of academic ability. 2. Remember the Rosenthal effect; it often holds true. A student who is expected to be disruptive usually will act that way. A student who is placed in high-functioning, well-behaved classes also performs well and conforms to a high standard of behavior. 3. Consider mixing the low-language-level younger deaf students into classes with higher language levels. Language acquisition may improve for the students who have been lagging behind in language development. 4. Especially at the lower and middle school levels, if strong reasons and a strong consensus for ability grouping persist, consider a compromise ability grouping plan. Under the compromise plan, the top 50% of the students are grouped by ability. For example, if there are six classes at the middle school level, group by ability for the top three classes. However, do not group the other 50% of the students according to ability. Instead, mix the remaining half of the students according to social—not ability , academic, or behavioral—criteria. Students quickly will sense that they have gotten away from the "dumb, dumber, dumbest " class syndrome and that they are with classmates who have been grouped together for reasons other than behavior or academic ability. Following such a model may result in the payoffs of better learning and a more smoothly running school. Bibliography Rosenthal, R., & Fode, K. Three experiments in experimenter bias. Psychological Reports, 1963, 12, 491511 . Rosenthal, R. Experimenter effects in behavioral research. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1966. Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L., Pygmalion in the classroom . New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1968. James R. LeBuffe, Ed.D. Superintendent, Katzenbach School for the Deaf A.A.D. I October 1983 795 ...