This paper reviews the research literature on homogeneous grouping and ability tracking in K–12 education. It defines key structural dimensions — electivity, selectivity, inclusiveness, and scope — and examines how grouping practices affect student achievement, self-concept, expectancies and attitudes, socioeconomic status maintenance, and opportunities for learning. Drawing on studies spanning elementary through secondary school, the paper finds mixed evidence on achievement outcomes, notes significant self-concept differences between track levels, and highlights persistent equity concerns about the disproportionate placement of minority and low-income students in lower tracks. The paper concludes that ability grouping is not inherently harmful but requires clear educational purpose, flexible movement between groups, and strong teacher training to produce equitable outcomes.
The paper demonstrates systematic comparative synthesis: rather than simply listing study findings, it places conflicting results (e.g., Kulik & Kulik vs. Slavin) directly against one another and then explains methodological reasons — such as ceiling effects on standardized tests for gifted students — for the discrepancies. This technique shows readers how to evaluate contradictory evidence rather than simply accepting one side.
The paper opens with conceptual definitions, then narrows to structural dimensions of tracking before moving through five distinct outcome categories (achievement, self-concept, expectancies/attitudes, socioeconomic status, and opportunities for learning), each treated as its own subsection. The conclusion synthesizes findings across all five areas and offers practical recommendations, creating a tidy funnel structure from broad definition to specific evidence to actionable guidance.
The term homogeneous refers to items, elements, or units that are similar in nature — essentially, members of a group that possess the same basic qualities or properties. The antonym of homogeneous is heterogeneous. When a group of items is described as homogeneous, the individual members share a number of similarities; when members differ across a range of properties, the group is heterogeneous. These terms are not limited to physical items; they can also describe groups of individuals by considering similarities and differences in particular traits or features. When used in a learning environment, homogeneous groups refer to organized clusters of students with comparable instructional levels who are placed together and work with materials deemed appropriate to their specific level. Placement is usually determined through a series of assessments, and the process of forming such groups is known as homogeneous grouping.
The exercise of homogeneous grouping employs a model that generally places students into groups based on ability or achievement. At higher levels of student learning, the practice is common in mathematics, where students are assigned to general, vocational, or college-preparatory courses. A similar pattern can also be seen in schools that offer algebra at the eighth grade, particularly at the junior high and middle school levels (Oakes, 1985; Slavin, 1990). Grouping can also be applied at the elementary school level, though at that stage it is typically based on general ability or achievement rather than performance in a specific subject such as mathematics. A second application of homogeneous grouping involves small clusters within classrooms, where groups are formed based on ability or achievement within that specific class. This practice has long been customary for reading instruction at the elementary level and is also used by teachers for mathematics instruction.
The placement of students into high, medium, and low groups for mathematics instruction is less common at the middle, junior high, or high school level, where students in small groups tend to do less work (Slavin, 1990). Such practices emerged from the prevailing belief that differences in children's intellectual ability are so great that students at different levels must be taught in separate classes or groups (Oakes, 1986). Nevertheless, many concerns have arisen regarding the long-term effects of these grouping practices.
Student grouping can take the form of ability grouping or tracking, and a distinct difference exists between the two terms, though considerable debate surrounds both. The meanings of these terms vary from school to school. Ability grouping is typically defined as organizing students into instructional groups within a class — most commonly for reading instruction. Tracking, by contrast, refers to the placement of students into groups across classes, assigning academic courses in subjects that reflect differences in prior learning or ability.
Tracking in particular has generated fierce debate. Critics charge that it not only fails to help any student but also channels poor and minority students into low tracks, effectively condemning a large number of students to an inferior education. Defenders of tracking argue that students with high ability stagnate in mixed-ability classes. Some teachers favor ability grouping, suggesting that most students become frustrated when an entire heterogeneous class fails to grasp a new concept simultaneously. They argue that low-achieving students slow the pace of high-achieving students rather than the reverse, and that a teacher must prepare two separate lesson plans for each period — one for high-end students and another for low-end students. Some teachers acknowledge that ability grouping may be beneficial in certain areas, such as mathematics, while cautioning against applying it across all academic subjects throughout the day. The most widely shared conclusion among teachers navigating this issue is that ability grouping is beneficial in some situations but not others, and that flexibility is essential so that students are not permanently fixed in a track without any realistic opportunity to move between groups.
Although ability grouping is widely used in schools across the country, it remains highly controversial. The controversy stems in part from a scarcity of clear evidence about how students at all levels learn best. Do they learn best in homogeneous groups? Can students' educational needs be better served in mixed-ability groups? These questions require deeper exploration in current research.
Several structural dimensions of ability grouping or tracking practice are important to define. These dimensions are electivity, selectivity, inclusiveness, and scope. Electivity is the extent to which students choose — or are assigned — their track positions. Educators and parents are encouraged to make the "right" choice according to students' capacities. Notably, Gamoran (1990) found that the more elective a system, the higher its students' achievement levels. Selectivity is the degree of homogeneity within tracks — the extent to which educators create like-ability groups by dividing students according to learning characteristics. The more selective a system, the more the organization of its students diverges from the composition of the whole student body, and the more between-class differences are accentuated (Gamoran, 1990).
Inclusiveness refers to the availability of options for subsequent educational opportunities (Gamoran, 1990) — in other words, whether the instruction a student receives prepares him or her for further knowledge acquisition or instead closes off future options. Finally, scope is the breadth and flexibility of a tracking assignment: the extent to which students are placed in the same track across all their subjects (Gamoran, 1990).
Ability grouping has a number of effects on student performance that can be categorized across five dimensions: achievement, self-concept, expectancies and attitudes, socioeconomic status maintenance, and opportunities for learning.
Achievement can be defined as the successful attainment of skills. The most commonly used measures in the relevant studies are standardized achievement tests and grades on report cards, both of which allow for skill comparisons among students. Reuman's 1989 study examined whether social comparisons mediate the relationship between ability grouping and students' achievement expectancies in mathematics. While the study primarily focused on student expectations, results concerning actual achievement were also reported. Mathematics achievement was measured for sixth-graders from a suburban public school district in southeastern Michigan using both achievement test scores and report card grades. The findings addressed both within-class and between-class ability grouping. Reuman found that within-class grouping raised high-achievers' mathematics grades. In a heterogeneous classroom that used within-class grouping, students of varying abilities were compared to one another; high-achievers were not competing exclusively against other high-achieving students, so their grades relative to average and low-achieving peers were correspondingly higher. Conversely, low-achievers' grades were lower. The opposite pattern held for between-class ability grouping: high-achievers received lower grades and low-achievers received higher grades when compared to within-class grouping results, because students were now being evaluated against peers of similar ability. Although Reuman's study did not focus on secondary students, it provides a useful comparison of within-class and between-class ability grouping at a grade level increasingly situated within middle schools.
Newfield and McElyea (1983) examined achievement differences between remedial, advanced, and heterogeneous mathematics and English classes for sophomores and seniors. Heterogeneous classes that included low-achievers performed better on the written portion of the English test. Low-achieving seniors and sophomores in heterogeneous classes also showed higher mathematics achievement. However, homogeneously grouped high-achieving sophomores and seniors in advanced classes exhibited greater achievement in both mathematics and English. No significant differences were found beyond these results. Sorenson and Hallinan (1985) studied reading achievement differences between within-class grouped students and heterogeneous classrooms for fourth through seventh graders in northern California. Their primary finding was that high-ability groups in within-class grouping attained higher achievement than low-ability groups, while grouping overall increased inequality of achievement. Although these results are drawn primarily from elementary school data, they offer relevant insight into the effects of homogeneous versus heterogeneous grouping on achievement.
Slavin and Karweit (1984) conducted two experiments to test the effects on mathematics achievement of within-class ability grouping, heterogeneous instruction, and cooperative learning. The first experiment included fourth through sixth graders from integrated, urban, untracked schools where teachers received appropriate training. The second included third through fifth graders from rural, predominantly white, tracked schools without specific teacher training. In the heterogeneous classes, teachers were trained to emphasize a high ratio of active teaching to seatwork, to teach mathematics in context rather than isolation, and to ask frequent questions and provide regular feedback. In the within-class ability-grouped classes, teachers used the same instructional concepts but differentiated pace and materials for each group. In the cooperative learning classes, students worked in heterogeneous teams of four or five members on individualized mathematics materials at their own levels, helping one another with problems. Slavin and Karweit found similar results across both experiments: cooperative learning groups and within-class ability groups increased computational skills significantly more than heterogeneous classes with no grouping. The achievement effects of cooperative learning and within-class grouping were comparable, suggesting that grouping students in some form is beneficial to achievement compared with no grouping at all. This study also introduced cooperative learning as a viable alternative to either purely homogeneous or purely heterogeneous classroom structures.
A 1990 meta-analysis by Goldring on achievement differences between homogeneous and heterogeneous classes for gifted students spanned grades three through twelve. Goldring found that the higher the grade level, the more gifted students benefited from specialized homogeneous classes. Teacher training for gifted programs directly affected student achievement: students in special classes whose teachers had received training specifically for gifted instruction achieved more than gifted students in heterogeneous classes, compared to gifted students in specialized classes whose teachers had not received such training (Goldring, 1990).
Kulik and Kulik's (1987) meta-analysis, which included many older studies dating back to the 1920s, similarly supports the finding that homogeneous grouping of gifted students increases their achievement. Slavin (1990), however, conducted a synthesis of twenty-nine studies from 1927 to 1986 and found that between-class ability grouping — dominant in secondary schools — had little or no effect on achievement and that different forms of grouping were equally ineffective. Gamoran and Berends (1987) reached the opposite conclusion, finding that ability grouping and tracking did affect student achievement and that differences in achievement may have resulted from variations in students' academic experiences.
Allan's (1991) critique of the inconsistencies between Kulik and Kulik (1987) and Slavin (1990) cautions against hasty interpretation of both reviews. In both studies, achievement was measured using standardized test scores. Gifted students typically score near the maximum possible on such tests, making it difficult to demonstrate significant academic improvement — a ceiling effect that may partially explain divergent findings when comparing gifted and regularly placed students. Allan recommended the use of teacher-made tests when comparing progress in homogeneous versus heterogeneous classes. Slavin did include teacher-made tests in his synthesis but required that they be designed to assess objectives taught across all classes. Because objectives typically vary among high, average, and low ability groups, the only tests meeting Slavin's criteria would assess minimal objectives, which would not capture achievement gains in average or high-ability classes.
Allan further emphasized that the most harmful aspect of the homogeneous versus heterogeneous controversy is the misrepresentation of researchers' findings, particularly Slavin's. Some writers may misinterpret his results to support their own positions, and some school systems have used his findings to make decisions about gifted or special education programs — groups Slavin did not actually include in his study. Beyond individual findings, how schools structure their tracking practices matters greatly: tracking systems with a high degree of selectivity, or high levels of homogeneity, tend to produce larger achievement differences between tracks.
The studies and articles reviewed rarely agreed on the benefits or harmful effects of ability grouping. The balance of available evidence does suggest that grouping affects achievement, self-concept, expectancies and attitudes, and opportunities for learning. While these four dimensions are all influenced by grouping, ability grouping practices are themselves influenced by students' socioeconomic status. When comparing heterogeneous and homogeneous achievement, three classroom structures must be distinguished: heterogeneous or whole-class instruction, within-class ability grouping, and between-class ability grouping, as findings differ meaningfully across these structures.
For within-class grouping specifically, high-ability groups attain higher achievement than low-ability groups (Reuman, 1989). Compared to heterogeneous grouping, both within-class grouping and cooperative learning groups are more beneficial to achievement (Slavin & Karweit, 1984). For between-class ability grouping — widely used in secondary schools (Slavin, 1990) — low achievers received higher grades and high achievers received lower grades than their counterparts in within-class grouping (Reuman, 1989). Comparing between-class grouping to heterogeneous classes, high achievers in advanced-tracked classes showed greater achievement than high achievers in heterogeneous classes (Newfield & McElyea, 1983).
In summary, ability grouping is not inherently harmful, but practicing it without a clear overall educational purpose can produce unclear effects on student outcomes and performance in mathematics. It is recommended that any school seeking to re-evaluate its grouping system take into consideration the composition of the student body, the purpose of ability group placement, and the desired educational outcomes. Before adopting any ability grouping method, schools should assess their commitment to teacher training, their capacity to support instructional staff, and the potential benefits of cooperative learning as an instructional approach. For further context on the broader policy debates surrounding academic tracking, the ongoing national conversation about equity and student placement remains highly relevant.
Allan, S. D. (1991). Ability-grouping research reviews: What do they say about grouping and the gifted? Educational Leadership, 48(6), 60–65.
Byrne, B. M. (1988). Adolescent self-concept, ability grouping, and social comparison: Re-examining academic track differences. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Atlanta, GA, August 12–16, 1988.
Gamoran, A. (1990). The variable effects of tracking: Inequality and productivity in American schools. Madison, WI: National Center on Effective Secondary Schools.
Gamoran, A., & Berends, M. (1987). The effects of stratification in secondary schools: Synthesis of survey and ethnographic research. Review of Educational Research, 57(4), 415–435.
Goldring, E. (1990). Assessing the status of information on classroom organizational frameworks for gifted students. The Journal of Educational Research, 83(6), 313–327.
Goodland, J., & Oakes, J. (1988). We must offer equal access to knowledge. Educational Leadership, 45(5), 16–22.
Jones, D., Vanfossen, B., & Spade, J. (1987). Individual and organizational predictors of high school track placement. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, April 1987.
Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1987). Effects of ability grouping on student achievement. Equity & Excellence, 23(1–2), 22–30.
Lake, S. (1988). Equal access to education: Alternatives to tracking and ability grouping. Practitioner's Monograph, 2.
Muskin, C. (1990). Equity and opportunity to learn in high school United States history classes: Comparisons between schools and ability groups. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.
Newfield, J., & McElyea, V. B. (1983). Achievement and attitudinal differences among students in regular, remedial, and advanced classes. Journal of Experimental Education, 52, 47–56.
Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven and London.
Oakes, J. (1986). Keeping track, part 1: The policy and practice of curriculum inequality. Phi Delta Kappan, 68, 12–17.
Oakes, J. (1986). Beyond tracking. Educational Horizons, 65(1), 32–35.
Poppish, S., et al. (1990). Assessing students' attitudes toward heterogeneous grouping: A pilot study.
Reuman, D. A. (1989). How social comparison mediates the relation between ability-grouping practices and students' achievement expectancies in mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 178–189.
Reuman, D., Miller, S., & Eccles, J. (1983). Social comparison and ability-grouping effects on ability evaluations in mathematics. Paper presented at the 91st annual convention of the American Psychological Association, Anaheim, CA.
Slavin, R. (1990). Achievement effects of ability grouping in secondary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 60(3), 471–499.
Slavin, R. E., & Karweit, N. L. (1984). Mathematics achievement effects of three levels of individualization: Whole class, ability grouped, and individualized instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.
Sorenson, A. B., & Hallinan, M. T. (1986). Effects of ability grouping on growth in achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 519–542.
Trimble, K., & Sinclair, R. (1987). On the wrong track: Ability grouping and the threat to equity. Equity & Excellence, 23(1–2), 15–21.
Vanfossen, B., Jones, D., & Spade, J. (1987). Curriculum tracking and status maintenance. Sociology of Education.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.