flexible groups or labeling kids?

Because most teams rarely get to the place where they really know each child’s specific learning needs, they group kids not according to specific intervention needs, but instead more generally. The groups usually go something like this: “low group”, “middle group”, and “high group”.” When I ask, for example, “what does it mean to be a “high” kid?,” I usually get some overarching description of what the teacher feels the child’s development is, their family support, or even a description of perceived intelligence. Eek! These groups are usually not focused on specific standards, targets or specific skills. Instead they are based on some general overreaching judgement or one standardized reading or test score and almost always not flexible. Once in a group, you stay in. It becomes part of your identity. 

Captain Obvious here, but there are lots of problems with the practice of labeling individuals or groups, particularly in an environment of education where we shouldn’t have preconceived limiting beliefs about any child’s potential. Research is clear that we treat kids differently when they are assigned a label. (West Virginia Department of Education’s compilation of research.) That said, I fully recognize that when I’ve heard my good-hearted educator colleagues use terms like “high kids” and “low kids”, they are not intentionally trying to label kids or limit their beliefs about kids’ potential. It’s like when Grandma Hansen would call me a “fat kid.” She definitely didn’t mean any harm, but as the recipient of that particular label of endearment, it wasn’t good use of language none-the-less. 

Intentions aside, that type of language makes me wonder about educators’ beliefs about learning in general. 

When teachers talk about their “low kids” it feels permanent to me, as if they expect them to always be a “low kid”. “Of course he struggled learning X, he is a low kid.” Or, they always expect a “high kid” to always be a “high kid”, or a “SPED kid” to always need special education services. But, if learning is a continuum, can’t people move on that continuum? Can’t our abilities improve or change as we try harder or just develop better strategies? In other words, isn’t it our job to help the “low kids” become “high kids” and to challenge the “high kids” sufficiently enough that at some point they might experience authentic struggle- and therefore be low in a standard or skill? My point is that the way that the terms like “low kid” or “high kid” are used, it makes me think that those using those terms believe that once a “low kid”, always a “low kid” and once a “high kid”, always so and etc. That’s just not true. 

As a learner, my current understanding of one target might be lacking (low) while my current understanding in another target might be strong (high). That doesn’t make ME low or high. It makes my current position on the learning continuum low or high. In my own case as a student, I had strengths in some areas and not in others. How about you? In high school I probably would have been sorted as a “low kid” in English and possibly a “middle” or “high kid” in math. Given some of my writing endeavors, and my lack of math accomplishments, clearly, the labels wouldn’t have been a good indication of my permanent position or potential.

Flexible Groups
I’m not opposed to flexible groups for intervention, far from it. It is the only feasible way to provide targeted intervention in schools that lack unlimited resources for one on one tutoring. Flexible grouping is a good thing that works amazingly well IF teacher teams do it well. Start with these 6 things:

1. Develop groups and design interventions that are specific to students’ needs. Example: If kids are struggling on an assessment because they don’t conceptually understand common denominators, don’t just practice finding common denominators, design an intervention that helps them develop conceptual understanding first, then let them practice. (This means you have to be collecting good formative data for making these diagnoses accurately.) 
2. Be reasonable about how big the group can be. If kids didn’t learn what was intended in a class of 30, it’s unlikely they will learn it in an intervention group of 20. The more intensive the need, the smaller the group should be. 
3. Help kids see their position in regard to a target and celebrate movement toward the target. As Rick Stiggins is fond of saying, “Students can hit any target they can see which stands still.” Actually achieving targets will do more for motivating students than anything else. –That’s a whole different blog.  
4. Groups have to be flexible. As soon as a student has developed proficiency, move them.    
5. Stop using labels! If you’ve followed the steps above, “low” or “high” are no longer sufficient descriptions of your groups, because your process is not about sorting, but now about providing intervention for small groups of students with the same cause for deficiency. When describing the group to colleagues, you might say, “the group who is working to develop conceptual understanding of fractions.” It’s a longer description, but far more accurate and transient than “low kids”.

When schools get better at formatively determining needs in relation to specific targets, and doing something about it, their language naturally evolves so that they quit using labels. Instead of saying Johnny is a “low kid” or “high kid” they say, “Jonny is struggling finding relevant evidence.” They describe the child’s position on the learning continuum at that given moment (a temporary position) in regard to that particular standard or target. 

Yes, it takes more time to say, “Jonny is at the lower end of the achievement spectrum with regard to finding evidence” than it does to say, “Jonny is a “low kid””. However, you’re making a shift in your own mind as well as the mind of any hearing individuals, including the child, that you’re describing a temporary condition, not the child’s identity. 

In a profession that is so happy to create impressive sounding jargon, can’t we get a little tighter about how we talk about children? Some people might argue that I’m just being one of those overly sensitive politically correct people. I can respect that opinion if you’re willing to start using similar labels while talking about adults. “Since you’re a “low teacher”, you’ll be going with the “low group” for professional development while the “high teachers” go to “high group” PD.” 

In my own development as a teacher and leader, I was guilty of unintentionally using some of these labels.  But as I learned better, I changed the way I spoke. Once we know better, we have an obligation to do better. Just like we expect our students to move on the continuum, this blog isn’t meant to be an indictment or labeling of you or your past practices. Just use what you now know to do better, to move on the continuum! Change your lexicon to be more precise as you describe children’s current position on the learning continuum in relation to the target. Then help those around you do the same. By changing the language, you are helping yourself, your colleagues and kids see that their current positions are not permanent labels, but moveable positions. Then help kids move by following the steps listed above.

Click here to tweet: “Flexible Groups or Labeling Kids? Check out @Aaronhansen77's latest blog: https://ctt.ec/f1PT2+ #edleadership #atplc”