Assigning Students to Classes by Intelligence: Pros and Cons

Introduction

The issue of assigning children to different classes on the basis of intelligence is a controversial one. On one hand, there are numerous practical and pedagogical reasons for this process of differentiation. On the other hand, there are compelling counter-arguments that emphasize the advantages of an inclusive and heterogeneous classroom. These arguments depend to a considerable degree on what is meant by the term "intelligence." Modern theoretical views reveal many competing interpretations of this term and a general rejection of more conventional assessments. This theoretical complexity tends to invalidate—or at least problematize—the argument for assigning classes on the basis of intelligence. After weighing these arguments, it would appear that there is more to be said in favor of not assigning classes by intelligence.

In an article entitled Education — Our Fundamental Resource, the author articulates one of the basic premises of all education:

"Education is the keystone of democracy. It provides communication between the diverse elements of our complex society and aids in the elimination of barriers of race and religion. It holds the greatest promise for breaking the cycle of failure which is at the core of the problems of the disadvantaged area. Hope centers on education." (Education — Our Fundamental Resource)

This point of view, which lies close to the center of all teaching idealism, implies that education is more than just the advancement of the individual child. Education carries an integral objective rooted in the assimilation of knowledge from various quarters and across many different levels of expertise and achievement. This perspective stands opposed to the separation of students into classes on the basis of intelligence, since such separation would run counter to the more democratic, integrative, and assimilative aims of broad education.

On the other hand, the view that children should be assigned to classes on the basis of their intelligence has many proponents. Many teachers and educationists believe that the separation of children according to intelligence and ability is a necessary process so as not to hold back more advanced children. Others argue that this system has numerous advantages: that children have different levels and types of intelligence that must be catered for, and that separating classes accordingly allows for more appropriate instruction at each level. This argument also points to the problem of teacher capability and teaching preferences, suggesting that differentiated classes help to facilitate more effective teacher placement. The argument is further complicated by recent intelligence theory—particularly Howard Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences. The sections that follow explore these arguments and the aspects of intelligence theory most relevant to class assignment.

The Advantages of Whole-Class Teaching

Many educationists and practicing teachers make a strong case for not separating or assigning students on the basis of intelligence. One of the main reasons for this view is that a mixed-ability class provides important educational advantages in terms of integration and social mixing.

"An important justification of whole-class teaching made by many teachers and parents we spoke with was the belief that mixed-ability classrooms provide social as well as pedagogical benefits. It is assumed that through whole-class participation in mixed-ability classrooms, students learn that the world consists of many different kinds of people, and through their daily experiences acquire satisfactory ways of interacting with children and adults who are not like themselves or their family and friends." (Dealing with Differences in Academic Ability)

In pedagogical terms, instruction in the non-segmented class system "is aimed at the average student. To help slow learners understand the lesson, the teacher begins with easy material and gradually increases the level of difficulty" (Dealing with Differences in Academic Ability). Importantly, this does not necessarily slow down the more advanced student, since these students are often asked to explain more difficult material to their peers. This form of peer instruction is considered beneficial to all pupils. More fundamentally, "a basic assumption behind whole-class teaching is that students need to hear alternative interpretations and responses to problems and that through skillful guidance from the teacher, they come to differentiate among answers in terms of their efficiency and effectiveness" (Dealing with Differences in Academic Ability).

In other words, the integrated, non-segmented approach provides a broader and more expansive base for the educative process — one that many educationists consider essential for a well-rounded, integrated education.

Assignment According to Intelligence

Those in favor of assigning students to classes on the basis of intelligence argue that a central advantage of this system is the creation of a more comprehensive and appropriate learning environment for all ability levels. In pedagogical terms, it allows for the best education and access at each appropriate level, and it facilitates more focused and effective teaching methodologies.

Advocates of this view acknowledge that the ideal of inclusive, non-segmented, heterogeneous classes is laudable, but argue that educationists should also be clear about the realities teachers face (Gottfredson, 2004). They point to the sobering reality of "heterogeneous classes created by the demise of grouping and tracking" (Gottfredson, 2004) and the difficulty teachers experience in classrooms where wide variation in ability levels makes it nearly impossible for most students to genuinely benefit from instruction.

With regard to peer-tutoring and cooperative learning in mixed-ability classrooms, many educationists argue that this view is only partially valid. "Only the fine print reveals that the experiments deal just with basic skills, not with higher levels of understanding" (Gottfredson, 2004). Critics also note that many students tend to rely on their more able classmates, and that the overall learning environment may suffer as a result. As Gottfredson (2004) argues:

"It has always been the task of America's public schools to facilitate social mobility, and, historically, they have performed the job well. They should now turn their attention to optimizing the development of all children. For that to happen, we'll have to acknowledge that God or nature did not make us all equal intellectually."

It is also instructive to consider how other countries approach this issue. In many school systems, whole-class teaching is practiced in the lower grades, with differentiation introduced in the higher grades. This is the case in Germany, for example, where teachers regard it as their duty to reduce differences in ability within each class by ensuring that weaker students are "brought along" with the rest. However, this changes substantially at the beginning of the fifth year, when children are assigned to one of several tracks leading to different types of secondary school. Teachers and parents attribute this shift to the belief that students' academic and social development is best supported in an environment most appropriate to their abilities.

Conclusion

From the above discussion, a number of central factors emerge that tend to militate against the view that children should be separated or assigned to different classes on the basis of intelligence. These can be summarized as follows.

First, the separation of students on the basis of intelligence assumes that there is a standard, universally agreed-upon measure of such intelligence. As the discussion above suggests, intelligence is at best a vague construct with many divergent theoretical trajectories. The advent of Gardner's theories further complicates the assessment of student intelligence. All of this raises the fundamental question of what intelligence is and how it can be measured — and collectively, these concerns suggest that intelligence is not an appropriate criterion for relegating or assigning children within the educative process.

Second, separation implies distinctions. While distinctions within the general classroom environment can be a positive and motivating force, the process of separating students into different classes tends to generate less favorable outcomes — not least a sense of negative self-esteem, which has been noted in several studies. Such separation can also lead to the development of cliques and entrenched stereotypes.

In conclusion, the view that children should be assigned to classes on the basis of their intelligence has a certain amount of merit. There are factors — such as greater instructional focus and more appropriate teaching methods — that can be marshaled in support of this position. However, in the final analysis, there are many other considerations that weigh against it, and separating children on the grounds of intelligence raises significant problems relating to the real and contested nature of intelligence itself.

Consequently, assigning classes on the basis of intelligence risks placing a child with a particular form of intelligence in an environment that is entirely inappropriate for them. Furthermore, other important considerations must be weighed — including the positive aspects of integration and assimilative learning that arise from a more heterogeneous and mixed learning environment.

References

Borland, J. H. (1997). The construct of giftedness. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(3–4), 6–20.

Dealing with differences in academic ability. U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved May 5, 2007, from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/SumItUp/chapter3.html

Education — our fundamental resource. Retrieved May 5, 2007, from

Gottfredson, L. S. (2004, Summer). Schools and the g factor. The Wilson Quarterly, 28, 35+.

Porter, L. (2005). Gifted young children: A guide for teachers and parents. Allen & Unwin.