American schools promise to educate every child in the nation. The population of students entering American public schools is as diverse as the country which creates unique challenges for educators. In an urban classroom students have varying levels of skills, language fluency, motivation and a range of experiences that influence their behavior and learning. A child in a Bronx classroom may have widely different needs than a student sitting beside him. Schools in New York City subscribe to a process of inclusion, meaning that students are placed in heterogeneous classrooms despite level of ability. Inclusion is a “ philosophy that brings diverse students, families, educators, and community members together to create schools and other institutions based on acceptance, belonging, and community. Inclusion recognizes that all students are learners who benefit from a meaningful, challenging, and appropriate curriculum delivered within the general education classroom and from differentiated instruction techniques that address their unique strengths and challenges” (Salend 2007) This practice was instituted to end the process of tracking in which students were grouped by ability from a very young age and given different educational opportunities on the basis of that grouping. For example, a student who has performed poorly in the fifth grade will be placed in remedial classes and only given the opportunity to receive a vocational diploma (LeTendre, Hofer, & Shimizu 2003).
The catchall solution for the challenges of a diverse inclusive classroom is differentiation. The one room schoolhouse is frequently cited as the model for successful differentiation in which classrooms are structured around students learning at their ability. The reality of differentiation is that the needs of the students are so varied that even the most proficient teacher must struggle to keep up. In a New York City classroom students who are at or above grade level sit next to students who are just beginning to learn English. Who is really served by this arrangement? The students? Or the school board and administrators who supply no additional resources. With inclusion as it now exists the onus for educating falls solely on the teacher’s shoulders.
In theory inclusion allows students greater freedom, while in reality the implementation of inclusion is tested at every turn. Inclusion requires that each student learn to the best of his or her ability, but students are then given a standardized test at the end of the year that measures their ability against their classmates, their state and the country. Standardized testing stands in opposition to full inclusion (Mastropieri & Scruggs 2001). Because teachers and administrators are held accountable for test scores students are force fed test material.
The unfortunate truth is that schools and teachers do not necessarily receive what is necessary to educate every student. The education that every American child should receive in the philosophy of equality and as defined by legislation such as the No Child Left Behind Act should allow each child to perform to the best of her ability and to acquire the skills that will allow her to be successful in her future endeavors. Unfortunately our system is frequently unable to provide children that which we have defined as the standards for public education. The responsibility for finding and implementing methods that enable these children to achieve is both in the school administration and in the individual classrooms of both special education and general education teachers. Sometimes it seems that we are not educating anyone. Heterogeneous classrooms are the way to proceed in theory. In reality, however, we must acknowledge that the education system is flawed and does not promote academic success, especially in the inner-city. No matter how students are grouped students will have a range of needs and abilities, but the range as it currently exists is too large. In schools with small budgets inclusion is manifested as a series of mediocre classrooms, with students not having the opportunity to go farther by taking honors classes or to be in the company of peers who will challenge their thinking. While the dangers of tracking are real, so are the possibilities of stifling students who can go far.


References:

LeTendre, G.K., Hofer, B.K., Shimizu, H. (2003). What is tracking? Cultural expectations in the United States, Germany, and Japan. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 43-89.

Linchevski, L. & Kutscher, B. (1998). Tell me with whom you're learning, and I'll tell you how much you've learned: Mixed- Ability versus same-ability grouping in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29, 533-554.

Mastropieri, M.A. & Scruggs, T.E. (2001). Promoting inclusion in secondary classrooms. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24, 265-274.

Salend, S. J. (2005). Creating inclusive classrooms: Effective and reflective practices for all students (5th  ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice Hall.