who are extra-sensitive to matters of discrimination, or is there substance to the observation?
Furthermore, are we all talking about the same classroom organization design? And if we are, are we talking about the same target populations? Are we discussing the streamlining of children with comparable academic achievements... or comparable aptitudes... or comparable I.Q.s? And if we are dealing with aptitudes, aptitudes for what? How do we identify and measure and value aptitudes... assuming schools normally do so? If, on the other hand, we measure academic accomplishments, how do the results correlate with capabilities, with potential abilities given appropriate teaching? And if Intelligence Quotient is the criterion, what is the relationship between I.Q. and academic achievement? Moreover, many a psychologist and many a teacher hold the strong belief that I.Q. tests are racially, ethnically, culturally, and socio-economically biased... and, in any case, do not necessarily measure those skills or potential skills which will ensure either success in school or success in life. What if, perhaps ad absurdum, the children did not constitute the principal variable in the educational equation, but the teacher did, or the pedagogical methodology, or the school system, or the classroom environment, or the ethnic, social, cultural, and/or economic environments? If any one or more of these factors predominate, how are we to judge classroom organization? Should we still be talking about ability grouping, or should we talk about, rather, capability grouping for certain children under certain circumstances? What if the ideal group is composed of one individual? Are we then shortchanging our children by grouping them as sheep?
Some scholars think so. Davis (1991) is of the opinion that "educators need to think about ways to reverse the negative trends caused by ability grouping" (p.1). Raze (1984) remarks that "research overwhelmingly indica...