Homogeneous Grouping?

Homogeneous Grouping is an ongoing debate in the education world. What is best for kids? Well at my school, we use both heterogeneous grouping and homogeneous grouping. We cluster classes according to labels (GATE, RSP, ELL) etc, however there is a mixture of ability levels within each class. Is it really important to group students?

Prior to the change in the education system (circa 1880s Prussian war) schools were one room school houses. "The old one-room schoolhouse was filled with pupils of all ages from the same social stratum in the same community--untainted by contact with anyone who might be a model of anything different" (45). Really, the purpose of the one room school house was to collaborate with people that had a knowledge base of interests, but at different levels. Kids were not grouped according to age, and they learned from each other. This goes with the idea of the classic theory of learning. Smith states that the one-room schoolhouse was definitely not the epitimy of a good education, but it was better than what it transformed to.

The militaristic point of view came about. Students were no longer mixed with all levels, but according to age and ability. Segregation, politicians thought, would be more effective and productive within the school system. To me, this was in no way beneficial.

Competition in the school place is derived from this. Kids were struggling to keep up with their peers. The part of this book really reminded me of story in the book The Tipping Point written by Malcolm Gladwell. In this book, he speaks of the Gore Company. The Gore Company's philosophy is to have everyone on a level playing ground in regards to their jobs. No one has a job title. Everyone is considered equal. Ironically, their company has been highly effective and has been profitable. No one has to worry about competition in the workplace. Would schools be more effective if they followed this model? My guess is yeas....It is similar to the classic theory of the one-room schoolhouse.