Synonyms

Setting (Great Britain); Streaming (Great Britain); Tracking

Definition

Ability grouping is a term referring to a wide variety of school practices that group students for instruction according to one or more measures of academic ability or achievement including their grades, teachers’ recommendations, measured IQ, standardized or locally developed achievement tests, etc.

Description

Ability grouping is intended to foster homogeneity in academic ability within educational environments. Ability grouping can occur within classrooms, between different classrooms or educational programs within schools, or even between schools, as is exemplified in countries like Germany. Sometimes students in different ability groups receive basically the same curriculum, with those in higher-ability groups just moving somewhat faster or covering topics in greater depth. In other situations, classes of different ability levels are presented with very different subject matter, such as math classes covering general math or calculus [5].

In the United States, as well as in many other countries, the nature and extent of ability grouping typically varies with students’ age. Specifically, in the U.S. within-class ability grouping is quite common in the early elementary grades. So, for example, students are often placed in small within-class groups, based on their existing skills, to learn how to read. However, as students get older, and most strikingly in high school, between-class ability grouping becomes typical. In the last century, it was quite common for high schools in the U.S. to track students, that is to divide them into completely separate tracks explicitly designed to provide a strong academic focus to academically-talented students, a “general education” for less academically-oriented students, and vocational training for students heading into the workforce immediately after graduation. Now, high school students are more likely to enroll in individual classes that are more or less challenging with other students who are more or less advanced academically, rather than in completely separate tracks or programs, allowing them to match their classes to their individual academic interests and strengths. However, often scheduling and other considerations seriously constrain such choices, creating a situation in which high- and low-ability students are not typically found in the same classrooms.

Although various forms of ability grouping are extremely widespread, ability grouping, especially in its stronger forms, is very controversial. Those favoring ability grouping argue that it allows teachers to target instruction more precisely to students’ existing skills than do heterogeneous grouping practices. It is also sometimes argued that students will learn better in academically-homogeneous environments. Specifically, one major concern is that low-ability students in an instructional group will not only limit the kinds of material that can be presented but will slow other students’ progress. Arguments favoring ability grouping also sometimes suggest that it will protect the self-esteem of low-achieving students by sparing them constant direct comparison with their academically stronger peers. In addition, ability grouping, combined with the provision of a different curriculum for higher- and lower-achieving students, is sometimes seen as helpful in preparing students who will begin work immediately after school to do so effectively.

In contrast, those opposing ability grouping point out its many disadvantages [2, 3]. For example, they argue that it is not easy to accurately and fairly assess achievement and/or ability and that research shows that factors like socioeconomic background and/or minority group membership sometimes influence placement in ability groups. In addition, they highlight research showing that teacher quality, instructional processes, and the classroom climate are often more favorable to learning in classes containing high-achieving students than in those containing mainly low-achieving students, which means that ability grouping is likely to further impede the progress of initially low-achieving students. They also point out that ability grouping in schools generally increases racial, ethnic, and socio-economic segregation there, due to the consistently found co-variation between socio-economic status, minority group membership and common measures of academic ability and achievement. Thus, they argue that ability grouping undermines the potential of schools to serve a constructive role in preparing students to function effectively in the diverse societies in which many of them will live as adults.

Generally speaking, reviews of the research on ability grouping conclude that within-class ability grouping has a modest positive impact on achievement compared to both within-class heterogeneous grouping and whole-class instruction [6]. However, reviews of the research on between class ability grouping come to conflicting conclusions. Those focusing on experimental studies, which typically do not involve situations in which higher-achieving groups are presented with very different subject matter than lower-achieving groups, suggest that this practice has no clear overall effect on academic achievement, although one review concludes that it may have a small positive impact on the achievement of initially high-achieving students. In contrast, reviews emphasizing correlational studies, which often are conducted in situations involving some degree of curriculum differentiation, generally suggest that ability grouping at the class or school level has a clear and sometimes substantial negative impact on the achievement of initially lower-achieving students. Some also suggest a modest positive impact of ability grouping on the achievement of initially higher-achieving students.

The fact that many studies of between-class ability grouping suggest either no achievement advantage to it and/or negative effects on initially low-achieving students led to strong calls to abolish such practices, and quite a number of schools and school districts in the U.S. moved in this direction during and after the 1990s. However, such efforts often meet strong resistance from both teachers and from parents, especially the parents of relatively high-achieving students. Some studies have documented very good results from de-tracking efforts, with markedly improved achievement for many students and no negative impact on initially high-achieving students. On the other hand, it is also clear that such efforts often cause a great deal of strife and they sometimes have unintended negative consequences, such as when the de-tracking of Japanese schools led many high-achieving students to leave the public school system for private schools.

Relevance to Childhood Development

Ability grouping influences students’ social and academic experiences. Ability grouping influences their social development by commonly undercutting the potential for students to interact with and develop friendships in school with those from other racial, ethnic, and social class backgrounds. Such a consequence is important because the formation of such friendships appears to have a positive impact on students’ intergroup attitudes.

Whether or not ability grouping is practiced also impacts students’ academic experiences in predictable ways. Specifically, the research literature strongly suggests that classes with high-ability students tend to be better learning environments than those with large concentrations of low-ability students for a wide variety of reasons related both to the individual characteristics students bring with them and to the kinds of learning environments schools are likely to provide to initially higher- and lower-achieving students [1, 4].

The policy problem posed by ability grouping for those concerned with child development is twofold. First, some forms of ability grouping, such as within-class grouping, appear likely to have modest positive academic effects but negative social effects, because they are likely to reinforce students’ predisposition to interact more with those similar to them than with peers from different racial, ethnic or social class backgrounds. Second, some forms of ability grouping, specifically ability grouping with curriculum differentiation, appear to undercut the achievement of some students while possibly enhancing that of others. Even if the negative impact of such forms of ability grouping on lower-achieving students is somewhat stronger than their positive impact on high-achieving students, as sometimes appears to be the case, decisions about whether to adopt such practices are difficult because they often involve trade-offs between losses and gains in different realms and/or for different kinds of students.