Rationalamerican:Alpha Children

All available topics:

Alpha Children Wear Grey

Last edited September 2007

“Alpha children wear grey. They work much harder than we do, because they’re so frightfully clever. I’m really awfully glad I’m a Beta, because I don’t work so hard. And we are much better than the Gammas and Deltas. Gammas are stupid. They all wear green, and Delta children wear khaki. Oh no, I don’t want to play with Delta children. And Epsilons are still worse. They’re too stupid to be able to read or write. Besides they wear black, which is such a beastly color. I’m so glad I’m a Beta.”

The Elementary Class Consciousness lessons in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World were repeated every night from a speaker located under the pillows of sleeping children in the “Neo-Pavlovian Conditioning Rooms” in the “Hatchery and Conditioning Centres.” His novel portrayed a tomorrow where children were marked from before birth for certain societal tasks, where freedom was traded for “community, identity and stability,” and where behaviorist and production-line tactics were used to keep every person in their caste. Not surprisingly, a drug called “soma” was required to assist with these tactics.

Are we making the same sorts of mistakes on a smaller scale today?

Ability grouping is still practiced by some schools. This homogeneous grouping is often accomplished by pulling students out of “regular” classes or creating classes based on ability. Generally the measure of both ability and “performance” is standardized test scores. It might even be said that ability grouping would be an easy way for public schools to tailor test prep activities and thereby raise test scores—whatever the effect on actual learning or intrinsic motivation of students.

Much has been written about the hazards of ability grouping. In a truly differentiated and heterogeneous classroom where an expert teacher is tailoring lessons and content to individual students, there are occasions for grouping or “clustering” children based on needs or goals or interests. This kind of amorphous clustering is not what we mean by ability grouping here. We must be careful to define our terms. Clustering of two or three students in a single differentiated and heterogeneous classroom is about common interests, specific skill sets, and tailored learning, not grouping by general academic ability.

Grouping by general academic ability often means pulling students out of a classroom, or creating homogeneous classrooms or programs, or gathering students in the back of classroom for separate time away from the general population. Where clustering is inclusive because it is constantly changing and because it is related to reasons beyond simple ability measures, grouping is separatist and divisive because it is defined by a narrow measure and because it involves the removal or separation of students from the mainstream classroom. Tracking is different from grouping only in that it is set up on a more or less permanent or semi-permanent basis.

The arguments against grouping and tracking are as well established as the practice itself, which refuses to die in spite of generations of criticism. Very often in wealthy school districts with competitive parents, it is the “gifted” programs which become the basis for grouping practice. Parents insist that their child is not being challenged in the mainstream classroom, and sometimes teachers who lack the skills, the theoretical background or the district support to create an effective differentiated, heterogeneous classroom find it easier to agree. As a result, academically gifted students—who may be advanced in only one academic area or who may even lack development in social, emotional or other arenas—are pulled out and separated from the mainstream. A teacher assigned to the task of educating these children may well report higher job satisfaction and ease of teaching, although what these separated children are missing from interaction with the mainstream may not be immediately apparent.

In a February 9, 2007 article, the New York Times reported the suicide of a 17 year old student at Glen Rock High School in New Jersey. The high school senior “known for his brilliance and bright prospects” took his own life by jumping off of the school roof into an interior courtyard after text messaging his friends saying goodbye. Friends and acquaintances quoted in the article noted that the student had applied to Harvard, Cornell and Columbia, that he was on the Spanish, Latin, physics and calculus clubs, and that he was a “very brilliant kid.” No one noticed anything wrong, and one person said “It was not like he was brooding. He had a lot going on.”

Such tragic endings of young lives are not unheard of, but does it relate in some way to grouping or tracking strategies of educators?

Some wonder if grouping strategies combined with competitive pressures from parents and with a natural tendency toward perfectionism mean that academically gifted students are being set up for depression, lack of friendships, bullying, self-depreciation, obsession over grades and scores, and even tragic outcomes such as suicide. Regrettably, extensive research is not available, but more and more people in fields of psychology and education are asking hard questions.

In a paper called Suicide Among Gifted Adolescents: How to Prevent It, author Denise de Souza Fleith writes:

"The most salient characteristics of gifted adolescents that may be associated with vulnerability to social and emotional disturbances are: (a) perfectionism, (b) supersensitivy, (c) social isolation, and (d) sensory overexcitability. Driven by a self-oriented or socially prescribed perfectionism, the individual establishes high and rigid standards. To do the best is no longer enough and the individual feels frustrated no matter how well he/she performs. Excessive concern about errors, in addition to high parental and societal expectations, can result in depression and absence of self-worth. Many gifted youngsters believe they are loved for their grades, honors, and special abilities. As a result, they do not allow themselves to fail or make a mistake. ‘The shame and guilt of 'failure' can lead them to suicide."

Turning to the question of schools, she writes:

"In the school environment, attention has been paid to raising standards and testing students. Academic success and cognitive development have been the focus of educational goals, especially for gifted students. Students may feel the pressure to succeed. However, the emotional and social development of these youngsters has been neglected by the school. As explained by Pollack (Teenage Suicide, 2000b), ‘you cannot separate out students' emotional report card from their academic report card’ (p. 22)."

Grouping of academically advanced students certainly does nothing to take off the parental or self-directed pressure to achieve high grades or scores. It also does not assist in helping gifted students to “fit-in” or to advance in developmentally appropriate ways in the social or emotional spheres. A 2006 study showed that two thirds of academically advanced eighth graders had been bullied at school. Jean Sunde Peterson, the lead author of the study, said in an interview that:

“All children are affected adversely by bullying, but gifted children differ from other children in significant ways, and what they experience may be qualitatively different. It is important to remember that although cognitively these children are advanced, physically, socially and emotionally they may not be."

Grouping only exacerbates the bullying that occurs as mainstream children attack academically gifted children because of their strengths. Grouping becomes an extension of the gifted child’s academic achievement which can ironically become a source of social shame.

In A psychological autopsy of the suicide of an academically gifted student: Researchers' and Parents' Perspectives, the authors review various ideas about gifted adolescents and suicide, and note that perfectionism, isolationism related to extreme introversion, and unusual sensitivity are part of the problem. From a humanistic perspective the authors find that “lack of friendships, self-deprecation, sudden shift in school performance, total absorption in school work, and frequent mood shifts” are possible warning signs of suicidal behavior among gifted students. Social isolation and limited peer relationships from grouping practices can hardly be said to improve on these problems. Gifted children already tend to restrict their interactions with others, and grouping them in a separate classroom or pulling them out for special attention would not seem to counteract that tendency.

An Israeli study called The Big-Fish—Little-Pond Effect for Academic Self-Concept, Test Anxiety, and School Grades in Gifted Children compared special homogeneous classes for gifted children with regular mixed ability classes and found:

“Overall, this study provides impressive support for the big-fish--little-pond effect in gifted Israeli elementary school children. Consistent with the hypotheses derived from reference group theory and BFLPE research, gifted students in mixed ability regular classes evidenced markedly higher academic self-concepts, lower evaluative anxiety, and higher school grades than their counterparts in special classes for the gifted…Our data lend evidence to the hypothesis put forth by Marsh (1987, 1991) that attending selective educational frameworks should lead to reduced academic self-concept for students of all ability levels…these data are also consistent with the bulk of research evidence indicating that gifted students partaking in segregated programs have lower academic self-concepts than those who attend regular classes.”

While studies on grouping and the gifted are few and far between, there is nothing to suggest that, other than a minor potential for increased performance on narrow scales of achievement like test scores, there is benefit for homogeneous grouping of academically gifted children. Just the opposite, early research and hypotheses suggest a significant detriment to academically gifted children who are grouped by ability. It is just that the eventual damage may not be immediately apparent.

So, if grouping has been shown to truncate learning or to promote negative social and emotional trends that can eventually lead to depression, self-depreciation, or even suicide, why do administrators continue to toy with the idea? The Israeli study hints at one reason:

“Many concerned (parent, teacher, administrators) might judge the positive academic outcomes of special classes in enhancing school achievement (Kulik & Kulik, 1982) to be as (or even more) important than academic self-concept or anxiety.”

In other words, if our schools are being judged overall by narrow test scores and competition with other schools, grouping may be perceived as an easier path toward improved scores than nurturing a district environment of authentic, differentiated, heterogeneous classrooms. That, after all, is a more difficult path to take. Much easier is to sort children by scores, to accept the praise of some parents who revel in the label of their “gifted” children, to acknowledge the relief of some teachers who do not choose to take on the responsibility of differentiation, and to ignore potentially tragic consequences which might occur down the production line. “Community, identity and stability.” We have none of Huxley’s soma drug, but perhaps Ritalin, Adderall, and Focalin will work for the students and a nightly bottle of wine for the educators.

Grouping does not help students of lesser academic ability and it certainly does not fit with the egalitarian ideals supposedly at the foundation of our public school system. For the gifted student population, the negative effects of grouping may be greatest of all, whether the practice ends with social isolation and neurotic perfectionism or whether it goes on to the most tragic end. A caste system of Alphas and Betas, or Robins and Blue Jays, is a practice we should not be supporting in our schools circa 2007. We know how to do better. Not surprisingly, Huxley’s Brave New World ends with a character’s suicide as he becomes isolated from a drugged and caste-ordered population. Like some of our young students, this character saw no other means out.

To cite this article:

Painter, John. Alpha Children Wear Grey. (September 2007). Retrieved month x, 2xxx, from

<http://rationalamerican.com/education>