Ability Grouping in Schools: Effects on Achievement and Self-Esteem

Introduction and Literature Review

Whether or not ability grouping is an effective strategy for the instruction of students with different academic abilities is a hotly debated issue, with divergent evidence. Some research has indicated that grouping students according to ability promotes increased achievement, while other research has demonstrated that stratifying students according to achievement has detrimental effects. This study aims to evaluate whether students in grouped versus non-grouped learning situations differ on academic and personal factors, and whether differences also exist within the grouped situation between low- and high-ability students.

Ability grouping in schools has been a continuously debated topic among teachers, administrators, and researchers. Whether it is beneficial to separate students according to aptitude or ability level has been extensively discussed and researched, and evidence has been provided in support of both sides of the argument. The rationale behind ability grouping is that segregating students according to academic ability improves achievement. Research has demonstrated minimal differences in outcomes of standardized tests and examination performance between schools with ability grouping and those without. However, other research has found significant differences in achievement between schools with ability grouping and those without, with some studies demonstrating the success of ability grouping and others demonstrating its failure (Ireson & Hallam, 1999). Does ability grouping matter? Does it significantly impact the academic achievement and self-esteem of students? If so, in what direction? Does the existing research support the practice of ability grouping, or demonstrate its ineffectiveness?

It is often believed that grouping pupils according to ability contributes to raising standards. Ability grouping is practiced widely throughout schools to some extent. In a study by Hallam et al. (2003), it was found that schools predominantly adopt within-class ability groupings, either mixed or ability grouped, for most subjects. The practice of ability grouping was found to be most common in mathematics, followed by English and science. The implementation of ability grouping was also found to increase as pupils progressed throughout school. If ability grouping is so widely accepted, why is it surrounded with so much controversy?

There are several reasons why the practice of ability grouping is shrouded with controversy. Borland et al. (2002) offer some suggestions as to why this topic is so often debated. First, ability grouping is practiced in response to individual differences among students. Controversy is often elicited when the issue involves differences in ability, especially where those differences are measured by standardized tests. A second reason for concern regarding ability grouping is that the differences emphasized often tie in with social issues, such as socioeconomic class, race, ethnicity, and gender. Thirdly, the term "ability grouping" does not refer to one type of grouping, but encompasses several types of learning arrangements. These arrangements range from tracking and homogeneous grouping to heterogeneous grouping and flexible grouping. All of these types function by dividing students according to certain criteria, but they differ in severity of segregation and in the criteria used.

Types of Ability Grouping

Tracking is the most extreme form of ability grouping (Borland et al., 2002). This type of grouping involves sorting pupils according to a standard measure of achievement or ability, such as achievement tests, IQ, or GPA. Pupils are arranged into "tracks" ranging from the highest ability to the lowest ability, and often remain in these homogeneous groupings for the entirety of their schooling, regardless of any performance differences between subjects. Mobility between tracks is rarely possible, which results in students remaining in the same track throughout their education, irrespective of changes in academic, personal, or social factors.

Another problem with tracking is that it is usually based on standardized tests, such as IQ tests, which have been found to discriminate according to race and socioeconomic status (Borland et al., 2002). Therefore, in diverse schools, upper tracks are composed mainly of middle- and upper-middle-class Asian and White students, while the lower tracks are disproportionately composed of lower-class Black children. This is a major cause for concern due to the possibility of students being tracked inaccurately. In addition, IQ does not provide an accurate indication of students' current instructional needs, and grouping according to IQ without differentiation in curriculum stratifies students in ways that are not in the best interest of their education.

Setting tracking aside, there are other forms of ability grouping that have more support (Borland et al., 2002). The most innocuous and widespread type occurs when teachers use within-class, heterogeneous grouping to divide students in mixed-ability classrooms for instruction in different subjects. This is a very common practice often used by elementary school teachers, who divide their classes into two or more math or reading groups. This practice is widely accepted due to the general acknowledgment that some children have better comprehension than others, or are at different levels in the curriculum. Therefore, in a heterogeneous classroom, exclusive whole-class instruction is often considered ineffective and inefficient.

Flexible grouping is a type of ability grouping that has shown promise and is advocated by many within the gifted education field (Borland et al., 2002). Flexible grouping is the process of grouping students according to their current performance levels on a subject-by-subject basis. This type of ability grouping allows for instruction that meets students' current needs. Flexible grouping is preferable to tracking because students are grouped appropriately across different subjects rather than according to a single IQ test. This is more realistic than the underlying assumption in tracking that all students in a track are at the same level in every subject. Flexible grouping is also superior to tracking in its ability to accommodate changes in the needs of students, motivationally, academically, and developmentally. Tracking is inherently based on the assumption that students are stratified into high and low levels across the board. Flexible grouping, by contrast, is based on the idea that students should be grouped according to their current needs in various subjects, not according to their overall "achievement."

However, flexible grouping is not easily put into practice. Administratively, scheduling becomes difficult if flexible grouping is extended to all subjects. Moreover, the success of flexible grouping depends on greater acceptance of differentiated curriculum within heterogeneously grouped classes and the allocation of additional material and human resources.

Myths and Realities of Ability Grouping

There are several misconceptions and misinterpretations commonly held concerning ability grouping. Fiedler et al. (2002) discussed commonly held myths surrounding ability grouping in an attempt to emphasize practical realities and encourage schools to provide equality of opportunity rather than sameness in experience for all pupils, with a particular focus on the needs of gifted students.

The first myth uncovered by Fiedler et al. (2002) is that tracking and ability grouping are the same thing. This is not true, and the differences between tracking and other types of ability grouping are evident, as discussed previously.

The second myth addressed by Fiedler et al. (2002) is that ability grouping is elitist. Some may argue that placing gifted students in groups may lead to snobbery, but the authors maintain the contrary. They suggest that unless gifted students are placed in situations where they can be challenged by intellectual peers, the chances of them developing an elitist attitude might actually increase. Moreover, the authors argue that students need to develop a realistic appraisal of their own ability through comparison, and this comparison is more likely to be accurate when made with others of similar abilities.

A third myth addressed by the authors is that ability grouping inevitably discriminates against students of ethnic and racial minorities. The authors explain how educators of gifted students have made great strides in changing identification methods. Significant changes are being made to overcome the inequities of relying on standardized test score data, and the trend is moving toward improved approaches that involve evaluating the behaviors of pupils for indications of gifted potential.

The fourth myth discussed by the authors is that grouping by ability does not result in improved achievement or learning for gifted students. This myth is refuted by evidence indicating that gifted students benefit both affectively and cognitively by working with other gifted students. Grouping gifted and talented students with a differentiated curriculum results in higher academic achievement and better academic attitudes. This grouping of gifted students has also been found to result in no decline in attitudes or achievement for the students who remain in regular heterogeneous classrooms. Moreover, Fiedler et al. (2002) indicate that grade-level achievement tests fail to reveal growth or improvement for students who already perform at the top of their class, because these students have reached the ceiling of the test — the highest attainable scores for that age group. The only way to determine actual gains in achievement for these exceptional students is through the administration of instruments designed for older students.

The fifth myth exposed by Fiedler et al. (2002) is the belief that heterogeneously grouped, cooperative learning situations are most effective for the achievement of all students, including the gifted. The authors argue that gifted children need regular encounters with challenging material in order to learn how to learn, and that without exposure to such material, gifted students may struggle to develop the study skills necessary for success in future academic endeavors.

The sixth and final myth explained by Fiedler et al. (2002) is that the mere presence of gifted students in all classrooms provides a positive influence for others and improves the classroom climate. As the authors explain, research indicates that students model their behavior on the behavior of others who are of similar ability and who are coping well in school. Furthermore, heterogeneous grouping may in fact have negative effects on all students in the classroom, including those who are gifted. In closing, the authors stressed the importance of equal opportunity in actualizing potential among students over the requirement for students to have the same experiences.

In support of ability grouping, an article in Gifted Child Today Magazine (2001) outlined nine realities, supported by research, regarding the effects of grouped classrooms. The authors suggest that grouping is a commonplace feature of the real world, and that ability grouping serves to prepare students for this reality. The nine realities were outlined as follows:

Reality 1: Approximately 35% of adults work at home independently and select friends with similar interests and occupations.

Reality 2: Group placement is a result of students' performance, rather than skin color or economic class.

Reality 3: "Effective" teachers of groups with varying ability levels may have different characteristics.

Reality 4: To ensure success, students tend to model individuals who are most similar to their own level.

Reality 5: Flexible forms of ability groups include within-class grouping, cluster grouping, cross-grade grouping, and pull-out groups that rely on students' performance level and interests.

Reality 6: Low-ability and average students tend to have higher self-esteem in grouped classrooms.

Reality 7: Achievement is enhanced when curriculum and instruction are slightly beyond the students' current performance level.

Reality 8: Teacher expectations influence behavior more than grouping practice.

Reality 9: Discussions that require higher-order thinking may intimidate or alienate lower-level children.

These nine realities outline how, overall, grouped classrooms may be advantageous for students performing at all levels.