Response 1, Week 2

In chapter 4, there were 2 points that really stood out to me; one was the groupings of students and two was the grouping of professionals. 
When talking about groupings of students, the author stated, "What type of grouping would best support learning for a specific group of students to address specific objectives?".  I'm quite certain she isn't talking about ability grouping of students into very high, high, medium, and low groups all year long.  I haven't figured out how this long standing practice is what is best for students.  Wouldn't it be better to assess, then figure out what each students' needs are based on a short section of say math, group them for a short time, reassess and then regroup?  Knowing what I do about literacy, putting students into static groups does nothing for their self-esteem (if in a low group), plus they do not have the benefit of learning from their higher achieving peers.  In literacy, groups are supposed to be dynamic so students have the chance to learn from others.  They also have thinking to offer that can benefit the whole group.
The second point was grouping of professionals.  Wouldn't grouping by problems instead of by department be differentiating on the presenters part?  Whoever is providing PD, or running the meeting should differentiate based on the professionals needs.  We do or should be doing this in the classroom, so why not during PD?  I hate going to a meeting (staff, grade level) and sit there listening to information that doesn't pertain to me.
The author brings up 2 very good points that would influence both student learning and PD for teachers.