Cards on the table, in my personal experience I have loathed having classes set by ability. When I had my geography classes determined by science sets (a fluke of my school’s timetable) I was so frustrated by how progress and engagement shifted. The dynamics of my classroom seemed to change for the worse. But my experience is hardly universal. Classes with students at extreme ends of comprehension and large attainment gaps complicate instruction. I have observed many a maths lesson where disparate understanding of the material derailed the class and one or two students monopolised the teacher’s attention. I’ve seen language lessons where students with near fluency waited patiently for beginners to bravely read a few sentences. There are valid arguments that in certain cases, ability grouping makes sense. The issue is that such grouping can have both positive and negative impacts, often simultaneously. Research in this area continues to highlight the effects on children’s academic and social learning experiences. On a micro-scale, ‘grouping’ within a classroom is the practice of dividing students into small instructional groups; it can be part of regular seating and scaffolding of learning material, or it can be performed ad hoc for a specific task and quickly dissolved. Ability grouping is on a larger scale, where students are assigned to separate classes, sets or tracks.
I’d like to underline that the word ‘ability’ is a social and cultural construct used to classify students. Grouping by ability places students in neat categories, which can erase their individual needs and aptitudes. This is why I prefer an adaptive teaching approach. Too frequently, schools rely on cognitive test scores in streaming or setting. Notions about students’ ‘ability’ are often based upon evaluations of, and assumptions about, students’ prior knowledge and educational advantages (Johnston & Taylor, 2023). Ireson and Hallam’s (1999) review of ability grouping, mostly in the UK context, found that standardised tests of general cognitive or verbal ability were the most frequently used to allocate pupils to schools or streams. The use of such tests in grouping implies that general intelligence is a single entity which predicts achievement at school. While still common, there has been a movement towards more holistic multi-faceted identification.
‘Setting’ is still a staple of the UK school system, it involves separating pupils by ability into gradient sets (top set to bottom set). Typically this would be done in maths, science, and English. Due to the structure of school timetables, there can be a knock-on effect where this setting was replicated in other subjects. Indeed, this stratification has been found to profoundly impact curriculum, student pathways, and resource allocation (Delany, 1991). Setting is usually done within subjects, while ‘streaming’ or ‘tracking’ refers to allocating groups across many or all subjects. Creating ‘tracks’ for homogenous grouping has become more common in US school system. The scope of separation varies in different educational systems, in some places, once students are placed the grouping is perpetual with little possibility of moving to a higher or lower track. Systems can divide children into ability groups at very young ages—identifying children for gifted classes in kindergarten, or tracking pupils into separate schools at the age of nine. Some schools remain comprehensive until the end of secondary school. In some cases grouping entails students being completely assigned to different schools, leading to little ‘mixed-ability’ learning or social interaction. There are studies that tout the benefits of grouping for high ability learners, both in self-esteem and educational attainment, however, an inherent problem with the research is a lack of consistency in defining who ‘gifted and talented’ or ‘top-set’ students are. Indeed, identification changes from country to country, and school to school (Johnston & Taylor 2023). There is a complex intertwining of dynamics that ability grouping has on curriculum exposure, pedagogy, teacher practices and perceptions, and children’s own expectations of themselves as learners. Higher and lower tracks within a system may have the same syllabus and pedagogical aims, but a different pace of progress. Other instances of ability grouping can involve completely different curricula and educational goals, wherein students acquire different skills and capacities.
The gist is this: when it comes to ability setting, overall it hurts. Tracking, streaming or setting are problematic and exacerbate social immobility.
The negative effects of ability grouping are that it has been found to widen the achievement gap, especially for equity seeking groups. McGillicuddy and Devine found that this had particular implications for learners assigned to the ‘weaker’ groups, specifically boys in primary schools, minority ethnic/migrant children, and those with additional support needs (2018). A serious consideration is the effect of ability grouping on the long-term educational trajectory of a student. This is not surprising given that the practice emerged from the idea that students have relatively fixed levels of ability. Extensive research in the US has consistently found that the net effects on achievement are small, with students in high-ability groups having slight gains at the expense of significant losses to students in low-ability groups (Boaler, William & Brown, 2000). There is substantial literature that indicates how instruction in lower set groups is of different quality to that provided for high set groups. For lower groups, there is a slower pace, conceptually simplified curriculum, and more structured written work. Teachers underestimated the range of needs and were less likely to correct misconceptions. Both teachers and students had lowered expectations. Their review found that in low set groups ‘there is a concentration on basic skills, worksheets and repetition with fewer opportunities for independent learning, discussion and activities that promote critique, analysis and creativity’ (Ireson & Hallam, 1999).
Study after study on ability grouping has pointed to entrenched cycles of social immobility (as noted throughout this book). A UK survey of junior schools in the mid-1960s found that 96% of teachers taught to streamed ability groups (Boaler, 2000). The same study also revealed the over-representation of “working-class” students in lower streams, and the tendency of schools to allocate teachers with less experience and fewer qualifications to these groups. Again, UK studies also find that students who are lower grouped make substantially less progress, while higher‐grouped students make slightly more progress compared to students who are in classrooms that do not practice grouping (Lleras & Rangel, 2009). The emotional response to setting is profound, with students reporting shame and disengagement when being placed in low ability groups (McGillicuddy & Devine, 2020). Self concept as it relates to ability setting has also been found to impact attainment. Students’ intentions to learn in future were also found to be more strongly affected by self-concept than by achievement. At the same time, students in high ability groups can experience anxiety and intense pressure to succeed and ‘keep up’. There are studies that look specifically at academic self-concept, Ireson and Hallam defined this as the cognitive, affective, and behavioural aspects of self-esteem. They performed a longitudinal study including students in 23 mixed secondary comprehensive schools in England, and described the extent to which schools ‘set’ students in low, medium and high-ability groups. The study examined self-concept for students in English, maths, and science at the age of 14-15 and followed up two years later. Students in high ability groups had significantly higher self-concepts in all three subjects than students in low ability groups. The conclusions held true; students’ determination to learn in future was more strongly affected by self-concept than by achievement.
One of the most illuminating pieces of research is the work of Boaler, William and Brown (2000). This was a four-year longitudinal study of mathematical learning in six UK schools. Here are the summarised findings:
- Approximately one-third of the students taught in the highest ability groups were disadvantaged by their placement in these groups because of high expectations, fast-paced lessons, and pressure to succeed. This particularly affected the most able girls.
- Students from a range of groups were severely disaffected by the limits placed upon their attainment. Students reported that they gave up on mathematics when they discovered their teachers had been preparing them to simply pass with the lowest grade.
- Social class had influenced setting decisions, resulting in disproportionate numbers of working-class students being allocated to low sets (even after ‘ability’ was taken into account).
- Significant numbers of students experienced difficulties working at the pace of the particular set in which they were placed. For some students the pace was too slow, resulting in disaffection, while for others it was too fast, resulting in anxiety. Both responses led to lower levels of achievement than would have been expected, given the students’ attainment on entry to the school (Boaler, 2000; pp. 6-7).
The implications of these findings are damning—there is severe and long-lasting harm done. It is no wonder that there has been a lobby for ability grouping to be phased out. However, despite all this, the practice persists; international survey data from PISA and TALIS suggest that 89 to 98% of secondary schools used some form of ability grouping within their school contexts between 2015 and 2018 (Johnston & Taylor, 2023). There is a convincing argument that pressure to meet international benchmarks (i.e. PISA and TALIS) continues to promote ability grouping as a pedagogic tool for meeting the needs of children, especially in the areas of numeracy and literacy (McGillicuddy & Devine, 2020). These country-wide scores concentrate on a limited number of subjects, and a country’s so-called ‘good performance’ can mask massive domestic inequalities. In the UK system there is a tension between the purported aim of school autonomy and a narrow view of school success. Schools are given choice, but only within the narrowly defined curriculum where students are heavily assessed in high-stakes exams.
Political pressure is intense and there have been threats to take the power to ‘set’ or ‘not set’ away from schools. In the UK, David Cameron stated in 2006 that ‘I want to see setting in every single school…I want no child held back, so my priority is not selection by ability between schools but setting by ability within schools, because every parent knows that a high-quality education means engaging children at the right level’ (Wintour, 2014a). Sir Michael Wilshaw, the Ofsted chief inspector, has been a supporter of setting, asserting that bright teenagers fail to achieve top grades in some comprehensives because in mixed-ability classes teachers concentrate on weaker students (Wintour, 2014b). However using this premise, ability grouping as the “best answer” is a strange conclusion to reach. The UK Education Endowment Fund report found that: ‘Ability grouping appears to benefit higher-attaining pupils and be detrimental to the learning of mid-range and lower-attaining learners. On average, ability grouping does not appear to be an effective strategy for raising the attainment of disadvantaged pupils, who are more likely to be assigned to lower groups. Summer-born pupils and students from ethnic minority backgrounds are also likely to be adversely affected by ability grouping’ (Wintour, 2014a). There is also evidence that pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds are more likely to be misallocated to lower sets. There can be a self-fulfilling prophecy for disadvantaged pupils, with their chances of improving attainment impeded by the combination of lower expectations and between-class stratification.
The way schools use data and judge the effectiveness of teachers can further incentivise ability grouping. Research data drawn from Australian schools where achievement data were used to group students showed that although there were no formal directives to group by ability, a cascade of performance management policies induced schools and teachers to adopt the practice (Spina, 2019). This use of data was normalised, ability grouping was viewed as evidence-informed, and the grouping was evident from the early years of schooling onwards. Another pernicious problem is that parents often pressure schools for ‘top sets’ or special classes for the ‘more able’. This feeds into Tomlison’s explanation for why England, despite the professed preference for egalitarianism in education, is still accepting of the selection and segregation of students regarded as more-able in better-resourced schools and programmes. Tomlinson places this in the context of late-stage capitalism, writing: ‘there is an irrational one‐dimensional view of the world economy which leads to a competitive scramble to acquire élite qualifications, abandoning notions of equality and meritocracy, and deploying ruthless strategies which require economic, cultural and social capital. Parents and students in this one‐dimensional world are subject to a permanent oppressive educational competition’ (Tomlinson, 2008; pp. 59). This resonates with me, as I have felt insistence from parents to propel their children into elite education. There is a traditional and familiar pathway to perceived success; getting your child into the ‘top set’ is seen as a win in the zero-sum game.
All of this is to say that ability grouping is entrenched, despite evidence that this exacerbates social immobility. We have the opportunity to change the course and this means reimaging our pedagogical approaches in mixed-ability settings.
References
Boaler, J., William, D. & Brown, M. (2000) ‘Students’ experiences of ability grouping—disaffection, polarisation and the construction of failure.’ British Educational Research Journal. 26(5), pp. 631-648.
Card, D. & Giuliano, L. (2014) ‘Does gifted education work? For which students?’ NBER Working Paper Series. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Available from: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w20453/w20453.pdf. Accessed 18 September, 2023.
Delany, B. (1991) ‘Allocation, choice, and stratification within high schools: How the sorting machine copes.’American Journal of Education. 99(2). https://doi.org/10.1086/443978
Education Endowment Fund. (2023) Setting and Streaming. Available from: https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/teaching-learning-toolkit/setting-and-streaming. Accessed 18 September, 2023.
Ireson, J. & Hallam, S. (1999) ‘Raising Standards: Is ability grouping the answer?’ Oxford Review of Education. 25(3), pp. 343-358. https://doi.org/10.1080/030549899104026.
Ireson, J. & Hallam, S. (2009) ‘Academic self-concepts in adolescence: Relations with achievement and ability grouping in school.’ Learning and Instruction. 19(3), pp. 201-213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.04.001.
Johnston, O. & Taylor, B. (2023) ‘A systematic literature review of between-class ability grouping in Australia: Enduring tensions, new directions.’ Issues in Educational Research. 33(1), pp. 91-117.
McGillicuddy, D. & Devine, D. (2018) ‘”Turned off” or “ready to fly” – Ability grouping as an act of symbolic violence in primary school.’ Teaching and Teacher Education. 70, pp. 88-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.11.008.
Spina, N. (2019) ‘”Once upon a time”: Examining ability grouping and differentiation practices in cultures of evidence-based decision-making.’ Cambridge Journal of Education. 49(3), pp. 329-348. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2018.1533525
Tomlinson, S. (2008) ‘Gifted, talented and high ability: Selection for education in a one‐dimensional world.’ Oxford Review of Education. 34(1), pp. 59-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054980701542096
Wintour, P. (2014a) ‘Compulsory setting: Schools face being forced to separate pupils by ability’, The Guardian, 3 September. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/03/schools-separate-pupils-ability-setting. Accessed 18 September, 2023.
Wintour, P. (2014b) ‘Nicky Morgan denies she plans to back compulsory setting in schools.’ The Guardian. 3 September. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/03/nicky-morgan-denies-plans-compulsory-setting-schools. Accessed 18 September, 2023.