Why Do We Educate
Children? Re-focusing
Total School Cluster Grouping
A Model to Improve Student
Achievement and Teacher Practices
To help each individual child
reach his or her fullest potential
for life-long learning,
learning
productivity, and citizenry in a
diverse democracy and a global
society ….
Marcia Gentry, Ph.D.
Professor, Gifted, Creative, and Talented Studies
Director Gifted Education Resource Institute
Purdue University
[email protected]
Gentry, 2002
2
Gentry, 2002
Rationale for Cluster Grouping
Generic Cluster Grouping
Common gifted education practice that
places a group of high achieving,
gifted, or high ability students in a
classroom with other students and
with a teacher who has received
training or who is willing to
differentiate curriculum and
instruction for the identified cluster
students.
Is not concerned with the other
Gentry, 2002students or classes.






4
The program is cost effective
Allows for full-time services for G/T students
G/T students clustered with their intellectual
peers, as well as with age peers
Some heterogeneity maintained
Deliberate reduction in number and diversity of
achievement groups for every teacher
Removal of highest achievers allows other
students to emerge as achievers
Gentry, 2002



High achievers placed with teachers who
have training, expertise, and desire to
differentiate curriculum and instruction
and to meet their needs
High expectations maintained in all
classrooms
All staff benefit from professional
development and methods used with the
high achieving cluster
Gentry, 2002
5
Background
Rationale for Cluster Grouping

3
Conducted the original study in the
mid 1990’s
NRC/GT monograph
GCQ article
Seminal study
New chapter in the Systems & Models
book
New book
New replication research on-going
Scale-up National Project (2009-2014)
6
Gentry, 2002
7
Gentry, 1
Total School Cluster Grouping
Definition, Features, and Goals
Features of Total School Cluster
Grouping
Specific, effective, researched
application of cluster-grouping
Involves all children and all
teachers
Focuses on gifted education
and talent development as the
basis for all classrooms
1.
2.
3.
Gentry, 2002
5.
6.
8
Some classrooms may contain clusters
of special needs students with
assistance to the classroom teacher
Teachers may flexibly group within or
among grade levels as well as use a
variety of flexible grouping strategies
within their classrooms
All teachers receive inservice in gifted
education strategies
8.
9.
Gentry, 2002



10
Gifted students regularly interact with
their intellectual and age peers
 Full-time services for gifted students
without additional costs
 Curricular and instructional
differentiation is efficient, effective, and
likely when a group of high achievers is
placed with a teacher who has skills
and knowledge
 High expectations maintained in all
Gentry, 2002
11
classrooms
Unique, Flexible, StudentBased Identification System
Removing the high achievers from
classrooms allows other student to
emerge as achievers
Student achievement increases when
cluster grouping is used
Over time fewer students are identified as
low achievers and more students are
identified as high achievers
Reduces the range of student achievement
levels that must be addressed by teachers
in all classrooms
Gentry, 2002
9

Research-based Benefits of
Cluster Grouping

Gentry, 2002
Research-based Benefits of
Cluster Grouping
Features of Total School Cluster
Grouping
7.
Yearly identification based on student
performance, with the expectation that
student achievement will increase as
students grow, develop and respond to
appropriately
i t l diff
differentiated
ti t d curriculum
i l
Identification encompasses low to high
achieving students, with all student
achievement levels identified
The classroom that contains the cluster
of high achievers contains no above
average students, as these students are
clustered in the other classrooms
4.

12
Uses a combination of tests and
teachers to identify the achievement
levels of all students that works with
any learners
l
High Achieving
Above Average
Average
Low Average
Low
Special education
Gentry, 2002
13
Gentry, 2
Terminology:
Ability vs. Achievement
Definitions of ID Categories
Gentry, 2002
1. High Achieving students are great at both math
and reading.
2. Above Average Achieving students are good at
math and reading or are great at either math or
reading.
3. Average Achieving students achieve on grade
level; they neither struggle nor do they excel.
4. Low Average Achieving students struggle
slightly with reading and math, or they struggle
with either reading or math.
5. Low Achieving students find school difficult,
they struggle in all academic areas and are at
risk of failure.
ACHIEVEMENT
Observable, Mani
fest
Variable
Develops
Readily accepted cept
con
Can be in
fluencedby education
14
Gentry, 2002
Unique, Flexible, StudentBased Identification System





 Facilitates
reduction in the number
and range of achievement groups
for every teacher
 Evenly distributes the behavior
problems
 Considers each child, each class
each year
 Encourages collaboration within
and among grade levels
16
Gentry, 2002
ID, Placement, Classroom Configuration
Class lists prepared--based on data
Changes made during placement
conference with teachers
 Parent
P
t requests,
t b
behavior
h i iissues,
separation issues, and teacher fit
issues are addressed
 One classroom had group of students
identified as high achieving, with other
students identified as average, low
average or low

17
ID, Placement, Classroom Configuration
Other classrooms each contained a group
of Above Average students
 Sometimes a classroom would contain a
LD or EBD cluster with assistance of a
Teacher Consultant in the classroom
 Clusters of students receiving math or
reading assistance might exist
 Some sites have arranged for clusters of
English language learners with assistance


Gentry, 2002
15
Placement in Classrooms
Tests are used for means of inclusion only,
not for exclusion
Ever know a kid who is really bright but
who doesn’t
doesn t test well and who,
who thus
doesn’t qualify?
What about the kid who can but won’t?
Who generally knows the kids best, tests
or teachers?
Multiple labels allowed!
Gentry, 2002
ABILITY
Latent
Fixed
SomethingoneÒhasÓ
Can bring out biases
A predet
erminedquantity
18
Gentry, 2002
19
Gentry, 3
Sample Classroom
Configuration
ID
Category
High
Achieving
Above
Average
Average
3rd grade
Clsrm 1
11
3rd grade
Clsrm 2
0
0
3rd grade
Clsrm 3
0
7
3rd grade
Clsrm 4
0
7
Sample Classroom
Configuration
3rd grade
Clsrm 5
0
7
3rd grade
Totalgrade
11
7
28
8
8
8
8
8
40
Low
Average
Low
4
4
2
4
6
20
0
6
6
4
0
16
Sp. Educ.
2*
0
2
2
4**
10
Total
25
25
25
25
25
ID Category
High-Achieving
2nd grade
Clsrm 1
8
2nd grade
Clsrm 2
0
2nd grade
Clsrm 3
0
2nd grade
Clsrm 4
0
Above-Average
0
7
7
7
21
Average
10
10
10
10
50
Low-Average
5
0
5
5
15
Low
0
8
0
3
11
Sp. Educ.
2*
0
3**
0
5
Total
25
25
25
25
100
125
Gentry, 2002
20
Gentry, 2002
21
Sample Classroom
Configuration
Sample Classroom
Configuration
5th grade
Clsrm 1
6
5th grade
Clsrm 2
0
5th grade
Total grade
6
High-Achieving
4th grade
Clsrm 1
6
4th grade
Clsrm 2
0
4th grade
Clsrm 3
0
4th grade
Total grade
6
Above-Average
0
7
6
13
Above-Average
0
7
7
Average
10
10
10
30
A
Average
10
10
20
Low-Average
8
0
6
14
Low-Average
7
0
7
Low
0
8
0
8
Low
0
6
6
Sp. Educ.
1*
0
3**
4
Sp. Educ.*
2
2
4
Total
25
25
25
75
Total
25
25
50
ID Category
2nd grade
Total grade
8
ID Category
High-Achieving
*note. This student is twice-exceptional.
**note. These students see the same teacher consultant who also helps the classroom teacher.
Gentry, 2002
22
High-Achieving
3rd grade
Clsrm 1
10
Above-Average
0
3rd grade 3rd grade
Clsrm 2 Clsrm 3
10
0
0
7
3rd grade 3rd grade 3rd grade
Clsrm 4 Clsrm 5 Total grade
0
0
20
7
7
23
Addresses the Limited Seats on
the “Gifted Bus” Syndrome
Sample Classroom
Configuration
ID Category
Gentry, 2002

21
Average
0
8
8
8
0
24
Low-Average
16
0
0
9
0
24
Low
0
6
10
0
10
26
Sp. Educ.
0
2*
0
2
4**
10
Total
26
26
26
26
21
125


Think about the under-represented kids in
a system of programming that limits the
numbers of students who can be gifted
What if there are more or fewer kids in a
given year?
TSCG addresses this, as students who
need services are served, it’s that simple.
*note. These students are Learning Disabled and Gifted.
**note. These students are LD and see the same teacher consultant who spends 4 half days per
week working in this classroom, the teacher consultant will work in the classroom with the
teacher. Her class size has been reduced.
Gentry, 2002
24
Gentry, 2002
25
Gentry, 4
Programming
Provides full-time services
Promotes flexible uses of achievement
grouping
 Removes the ceiling
 Targets various readiness and
achievement levels so that students can
make progress
 Facilitates authentic differentiation and
continuous progress
 Brings gifted education to the masses

Gifted kids are gifted more than once
a week
 Integrates
g
the g/t
g program
p g
with the
general education program
 Adds no additional cost, but adds
considerable expertise
 Works in conjunction with other
programs and services, e.g., pull-out,
send-out, self-contained

Gentry, 2002
26
Gentry, 2002
Addresses the Ability-Grouping
Myths
General Education Borrows Gifted
Education Strategies: Students Benefit
You took my sparks
The gifted kids are the models and
leaders for the other kids
 Ability
Abilit is
i fixed
fi d
 Grouping hurts the kids, removing the
high achievers causes others to fail
 If we label or tell the students, they’ll
know
 It can all be done in the regular
heterogeneous classroom
Gentry, 2002

Individualization
 Curriculum compacting
 Challenges
 Choices
 Interests
 High teacher expectations
 Use of grouping

Gentry, 2002

28
Gentry, 2002
De finition
T he place m ent of se vera l h igh ac hieving, hig h a bi li ty, o r gifted stude nts in a
regu lar classr oo m w ith ot her stude nts an d a teac her w ho has rece ived tra inin g or
h as a des ire to differ entiate cu rricu lu m a n d in struc tion for these Òtarge tÓ
stude nts.
T ot al Sc hoo l
C lus ter
Gr oup ing
C lus ter gr o up ing m o de l th at takes into acc oun t t he ac hievem ent levels o f all
stude nts and places stude nts in classr oo m s year ly in orde r to reduce the nu m b er
o f ac h ievem ent levels in eac h c lassr oo m and fac ili tate teac hers Õd iff ere ntiation
o f curr icu lum and in struc tion for all stude nts an d th us in crease stude n t
ac hievem ent.
Ab ili ty
Gr oup ing
S tude nts are gr ouped for the purp ose of m od ifi ca tio n of pace , instruc tion , an d
curr icu lum . Gr oups ca n be fl exib le an d arra nged by su bjec t, w ithin classes, o r
b etwee n c lass e s.
A chiev em en t
Gr oup ing
F ocuses on de m on stra ted lev els of ac h ievem ent by stude nts and is v iewed as
so m eth ing dyn ami c and changing. Gr oups ca n b e a rra nged b y su bjec t, w ithin
class
l es, o r b etwee
t
n c lasses.
l
Be twee n
C lass
Gr oup ing
S tude nts are regr oupe d for a su bjec t area (usua lly w ithin an e lem entar y grade
level) b ased o n abili ty or ac h ievem ent. . Teac hers in struc t s tude nts w o rk ing at
simil ar levels w ith appr op riately c hall en gin g curr icula, at an appr opr iate pace,
and w ith m etho ds m ost su ited to fac ili tate acade mi c ga in.
W ith in C lass
Gr oup ing
T h ese gr oups are d iffere nt a rra nge m en ts teac h ers use w ithin their classes.
Gr oups m ay b e crea ted by interes t, sk ill , ac h ievem ent, jo b, abili ty, se lf -se lec tion
Ğ e ither heter oge neous or hom oge neous Ğ a nd can include v ar ious form s of
coo pera tive lear ning gr ou ping arra nge m ents. Gr ou ps are in tended t o b e fl ex ible.
Track in g
T h e full-tim e p lace m ent of stude nts into abili ty groups f or instruc tion Ğ usua ll y
b y class and at the sec ondar y level. L ittle opp o rtun ity exists to m ove betwee n
tracks.
F lexib le
Gr oup ing
T h e use of v arious for m s of group in g for in struc tion, pac in g, a nd cu rricu lu m in
suc h a m ann er to a ll ow for m ovem ent of s tude nts b etwee n a nd am ong gr o ups
b ased o n th eir pr og ress and needs.
29
Considers the Total School
Ta ble 1 . Gr oup in g Ter mi nology Su m m ar y
Term
C lus ter
Gr oup ing
27
Does not “rescue” gifted kids from
general education, rather brings
gifted education to g
g
general
education
 Becomes part of the total school
plan
 Addresses individual children’s and
teachers’ needs

30
Gentry, 2002
31
Gentry, 5
Program Philosophy and Practices
Research Questions & Results
Curricular emphasis placed on advanced
methods and content
 High
g teacher expectations
p
were the norm
 Flexible, individualized, student oriented
approach to placement and teaching
 Extensive, responsive, on-going
professional development
 Flexible grouping
1. Is cluster grouping related to teacher
perceptions of student achievement as
measured by teacher identification categories?
2. How does the achievement of students from a
school using cluster grouping compare with
that of students in a similar school not using
cluster grouping?

Gentry, 2002
32
Gentry, 2002
Methods & Procedures
Research Questions & Results
3. How does cluster grouping affect the
representation and achievement of students
from underrepresented populations?
 Quasi-experimental,
descriptive,
experimental
 Entire grade levels of students
over time, different settings
 Use of NCE achievement, repeated
measures
 Qualitative component
4. What factors exist within the classroom and
school using cluster grouping that may
influence student achievement?
Gentry, 2002
33
34
Identification findings
Gentry, 2002
35
Identification frequencies
Changes in identification categories
were consistent
 Number of students identified as HA
increased during the 3 program years
 Number of students identified as LA
decreased during the 3 program
years

40
F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
Changes in High Achievement
Identification Frequencies
36
32
28
24
20
16
12
8
4
0
High Achieving Class of 2000
3rd
Gentry, 2002
36
Gentry, 2002
High Achieving Class of 2001
4th
5th
37
Gentry, 6
Identification Frequencies
Identification Frequencies
Changes in Low
Achievement Identification
Frequencies
40
36
32
28
F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
Changes in identification frequencies
__________________________________________________
24
20
16
12
8
4
0
Class of 2000
Class of 2001
__________________________________________________
Low Achieving Class of 2000
3rd
4th
Increased
47%
34%
Decreased
3%
9%
No Change
40%
45%
Varied
9%
12%
__________________________________________________
Low Achieving Class of 2001
5th
Gentry, 2002
38
Gentry, 2002
39
Total Sample Identification Categories: Years 1 and 2
Treatment School 1 Identification Categories: Years 1 & 2
300
140
130
248
250
120
110
206
192
200
100
100
90
149
150
2006
80
75
2007
127 124
115
2006
2007
68
60
51
92
100
49
42
71
40
50
50
29
26
33
20
15
18
0
sped
Low
L Avg
Avg
A Avg
High
0
Identification category
sped
Gentry, 2002
40
Low
L Avg
Avg
A Avg
High
Identification Category
Gentry, 2002
41
Total Sample Percentage of Low-Income Students by Identification Category:
Years 1 and 2
Treatment School 2 Identification Categories: Years 1 & 2
140
90
80
118
120
70
Percentage of Total Sample who are low-income
96
100
92
60
80
50
2006
2007
64
60
52
59
56
2006
2007
40
30
43
40
29
20
24
20
15
15
10
0
0
sped
Low
L Avg
Avg
A Avg
sped
High
Gentry, 2002
Low
L Avg
Avg
A Avg
High
Identification Category
Identification Categories
42
Gentry, 2002
43
Gentry, 7
Treatment School 1 Percentage of Low-Income Students by
Identification Category: Years 1 and 2
Treatment School 2 Percentage of Low-Income Students by
Identification Category: Years 1 and 2
80
100
90
70
80
60
Percentage of School Sample who are Low-Income
Percentage of School Sample who are Low-income
70
50
60
2006
2007
40
2006
2007
50
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
0
0
sped
Low
L Avg
Avg
A Avg
High
sped
Identification Category
Low
L Avg
Avg
A Avg
High
Identification Category
Gentry, 2002
44
Gentry, 2002
Identification findings
Identification findings
The high achieving students were all with
[teacher 5A], and we expected more from
the students we had. By removing some
of the higher kids it may have influenced
the others to work harder. . .and maybe
teachers expected more because we didn’t
have the higher students and treated it as
a regular classroom and expected the
average students to rise to the occasion.
--Teacher 5C
Gentry, 2002
45
The high achieving students were all with [teacher
5A], and we expected more from the students we
had. By removing some of the higher kids it may
have influenced the others to work harder. . .and
maybe
b teachers
t
h
expected
t d more because
b
we didn’t
did ’t
have the higher students and treated it as a
regular classroom and expected the average
students to rise to the occasion.
--Teacher 5C
46
Gentry, 2002
Achievement
47
Achievement Results
Class of 2000: Treatment and Comparison Total NCE Scores
During 3 Program Years
56
54
52
50
Treatment
Comparison
48
46
44
42
Grade 3
Gentry, 2002
Grade 4
Grade 5
48
Gentry, 2002
49
Gentry, 8
Student Achievement Increases
Student Achievement Increases
Maybe CG had a lot to do with it. The CG
may give the lower achieving students
more self-confidence,
self confidence, because I think
they become more involved in class when
the high achieving kids are
removed…you know those high kids are
competitive and tend to dominate class
sometimes.
--Teacher 4C
Students in the treatment school began
with lower total achievement than those
in the comparison school
After 3 years in the CG program,
treatment school students outperformed
their comparison school counterparts
Much of the increase can be attributed
to the students from categories other
than “high achieving.”
Gentry, 2002
50
 The
Use of Grouping
 Teachers Matter
 The General School Environment
52
Gentry, 2002
53
Grouping and Student Needs
The Use of Grouping
By using achievement grouping we are able to
challenge the high achievers and meet the needs
of the low achievers without having either feel
like they’ve been singled out. We are able to
adjust
dj
our curriculum
i l
and
d instruction
i
i
to meet
the individual needs of the students at their
levels. Cluster grouping helps us do this.
--Teacher 3C
Within-grade grouping by skill levels
for math and reading
 Within-class grouping
 Flexible grouping
 Grouping affected identification (93%
of teachers believed it led to more
student identified as AA/HA)
 Grouping helped teachers meet
individual needs in classrooms

Gentry, 2002
51
Qualitative Explanations
Student Achievement Increases
…when you pull those really high kids
out--those who always have their hands
up first and jump in with the answers-when you get rid of those students by
putting them together in the cluster
classroom--the other kids have a chance
to shine. They take risks more often, and
see themselves as leaders of the group.
They are no longer frightened to offer
Gentry,
2002
answers.
--Teacher 3E
Gentry, 2002
54
Gentry, 2002
55
Gentry, 9
The Roles and Effects of
Teachers







The General School Environment
Teachers matter
Their classroom environments were positive
High, Yet Realistic Teacher Expectations
Integrating thinking skills, problem solving, projects,
acceleration adjusting assignments
acceleration,
Spending time with high achievers, developing curricular
extensions
Providing choice of partners or groups, or to work alone or
together
Using open-ended questions, independent study, challenge
questions, curriculum compacting, enrichment, choice of
problems or assignments
Gentry, 2002




56
Strong Administrative Leadership and
Support
Professional Development Opportunities
B li f in
Belief
i Colleagues
C ll
and
d Collaboration
C ll b
ti
Program Benefits to All Students and
Teachers
Gentry, 2002
Professional Development and
Collaboration
Shared Leadership
I’ve learned so much from [Teacher 3A] and I
adapt many of the strategies that she uses with
her high achievers and use them with my
learning disabled and low achievers. I don’t
think that gifted education is just for gifted
students.
The teachers are the ones making the
decisions, so they have a great deal of
say in the program. I think that this type
off leadership
l d
hi in
i the
th classroom
l
has
h given
i
them real ownership in the program. Our
job as administrators is to support the
program that the teachers have
developed
---Superintendent
Gentry, 2002
---Teacher 3B
58
Gentry, 2002
Implications: Identification
Findings
59
Implications: Achievement
Findings
Cluster grouping may positively
influence the achievement of all
students
 Flexible achievement grouping used
in conjunction with challenging
curriculum should be considered
when designing educational
programs
 Cluster
grouping used in
conjunction with challenging
instruction and high teacher
expectations, may improve how
teachers view their students with
regard to ability and achievement
Gentry, 2002
57

60
Gentry, 2002
61
Gentry, 10
Implications: Qualitative
Findings



General Implications
The use of gifted education “know-how”
has the potential to improve general
education practices
Unlike suggestions by many reformers,
reformers the
elimination of grouping may not be
beneficial to students and teachers.
Professional development in gifted
education should not be restricted to just
those teachers responsible for students
identified as gifted
Gentry, 2002



62
A well developed cluster grouping program can offer
gifted education services to high achieving students
while helping teachers better meet the needs of all
students
Placing the high achievers in one classroom can
increase the chance that their needs will be met
while offering the opportunity for talent to emerge in
the other classrooms
Restricting the range of achievement levels in
elementary classrooms can help teachers better
address individual needs
Gentry, 2002
References
References
Gentry, M. & Owen, S.V. (1999). An investigation of
total school flexible cluster grouping on identification,
achievement, and classroom practices. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 43, 224-243.
Gentry, M. (1999). Promoting student achievement and
exemplary classroom practices through cluster
grouping: A research-based alternative to
heterogeneous elementary classrooms (Research
Monograph 99138). Storrs, CT: University of
Connecticut, National Research Center on the Gifted
and Talented.
Gentry, 2002
63
Gentry, M. & MacDougall, J. (2009). Total school
cluster grouping: Model, research and practice, in J.S.
Renzulli & E.J. Gubbins, Eds, Systems and Models for
Developing Programs for Gifted and Talented (2nd
Ed). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Gentry, M. & Keilty, W. (2004). On-going staff
development planning and implementation: Keys to
program success. Roeper Review, 26, 148-156.
64
Gentry, 2002
65
66
Gentry, 2002
67
References
Gentry, M. & Mann. R.L. (2008). Total School Cluster
Grouping and Differentiation: A Comprehensive,
Research-based Plan for Raising Student Achievement
and Improving Teacher Practices. Mansfield Center,
CT: Creative Learning Press.
Gentry, 2002
Gentry, 11