The Unintended Consequences

At First Glance…

We know that teaching whole-group style usually results in “teaching to the middle”, leaving the more advanced or faster learners and less advanced or slower learners behind.  We also know that children cannot be expected to have the same learning styles, interests, motives, or background information and skills.  At first glance, ability-based grouping seems to be an effective way to meet all students’ unique needs, to teach students social-emotional skills (self-concept, empathy, working cooperatively with diverse others, etc.), and to close the achievement gap.  If ability grouping works as it is intended to, then all students should benefit from it, right?  After reviewing research studies and opponents’ views on the effects of within-class ability grouping however, its equitability must be questioned…

However…

Several studies have found that within-class ability grouping actually creates increased social and educational stratification and inequality, that it is “…elitist and destructive to classroom community” (McCoach et al., 2006, p.339), and that it often hurts students’ self-confidence, motivation, and self-concepts (Chorzempa & Graham, 2006; McCoach et al., 2006; Routman, 2003). 

Let’s browse through specific findings from numerous peer-reviewed empirical studies to see whether the effects of ability grouping are equitable for all students, both educationally and socially (the goal of education)…

Let’s Dig Deeper into the Research (there’s a lot, so be patient)…

*Many findings could be in more than one category, so please look through all of them!

Racial Gaps Related to Ability Grouping- Which Groups are Affected?

African-American, Hispanic, male, and students of lower socioeconomic status (SES), have been found, on average, to be placed significantly and disproportionately lower in ability-based groups than White, female, students (Condron, 2008; Tach & Farkas, 2006).

Despite efforts to reduce educational inequality in the United States, substantial racial gaps in achievement and attainment remain. (Fryer & Levitt, 2006)

Ability grouping practices are particularly detrimental to the early reading trajectories of African American and Hispanic students who are lower grouped in first and third grade. (Lleras & Rangel, 2009)

While controlling for family socioeconomic status completely eliminates black-white reading achievement gaps at school entry, these gaps reemerge during the first few years of elementary school and are very prevalent by third grade. (Fryer & Levitt, 2006)

One study looked at whether ability groups reduce, reproduce, or exacerbate preexisting inequality in academic skills and found that ability grouping actually exacerbates inequality (Condron, 2008).

Tach and Farkas (2006) found that group differences increase as students move up through grades.

Black and white students in desegregated classrooms remain socially segregated unless school authorities create an environment that deemphasizes racial differences and supports and promotes cross-race interactions. (Hallinan & Teixeira, 1987)

White students are more likely to choose black students as friends if they are in the same ability group.  The absence of academic status increases the likelihood that white students will select black students as their best friends. (Hallinan & Teixeira, 1987)

At least half of the racial gaps in student achievement at the end of high school would be eliminated if early gaps were reduced. (Jencks & Phillips, 1998)

This stresses the importance of intervention in the early grades.  If group differences increase, that means segregation increases.  The less students interact with groups that are racially/ethnically different from themselves, the less opportunities they will have to understand, embrace, and learn to work with diverse groups.  These are important life skills.

Most inequality in academic skills is not related to class, race, or gender. (Downey, von Hippel, & Broh 2004)

We know that skin color, gender, race, etc., does not affect IQ or learning aptitude, so then how are students’ placements determined?  Could there be any bias (intentional or not) in the placement process?

Regarding Ability Group Placement and Opportunity to Advance

According to Hoffer (1992), if there are opportunities to move up into a higher-ranked group then the practice of ability grouping could result in increased competition among students and improvements in overall student effort  However, mobility between ability groups is often limited, which can restrict lower-grouped students contact with their higher-ranked peers and friendship choices (Hallinan & Sorensen, 1985).

While all the teachers said that they viewed ability as changeable, at least to some extent, it was also found that none of them had made more than a very few changes between the different ability groups over the past 6 months. If they really did believe that ability was changeable, they were not behaving as if it was and the problem of misplacement would seem likely to be a real one. (Macintyre & Ireson, 2002)

Teachers perceived greater differences in achievement between students in high- and low- ability groups than really existed. (Smith & Jussim, 1998)

African American students were found to be less likely than white students to be reassigned to a higher ability group during the school year. (Hallinan, 1996)

Placement of students in ability groups has been found to be based on formal and/or informal test scores and on teacher judgments and/or observations of students’ behaviors (Chorzempa & Graham, 2006; Tach & Farkas, 2006).  What is not typically factored into student placement are students’ strengths and weaknesses, amount of help needed, oral reading skills, comprehension, phonemic awareness skills, use of reading strategies, or their work ethic, ability to adjust well, or motivation to learn (Chorzempa & Graham, 2006).

An analysis indicated that there was a considerable overlap of the scores of the children in the high-, middle-and low-ability groups. (Macintyre & Ireson, 2002)

Many of these findings suggest that misplacement is common.  A lot of trust must be placed into standardized test content, administration of and lack of bias in assessments, and in teachers’ observations, perceptions, and judgments of students’ academic aptitude and their behaviors if these are what typically determine placement into ability groups…By the way, how is it that behavior is a determinant (intentionally or not) of academic ability?  If students are challenged appropriately, won’t their undesirable behaviors decrease?  This certainly seems to be the case with high-ranked (highly challenged) groups…

Differences between Low-, Middle-, and High- Ranked Ability Groups

The effects of ability grouping have been found to be positive for students placed into high-ranked groups (Chorzempa & Graham, 2006; Condron, 2008; Tach & Farkas, 2006).  Why? High-ranked groups are asked more critical thinking and comprehension questions, and are given the most opportunities to do independent reading and choose their own reading materials (Chorzempa & Graham, 2006; Condron, 2008; Tach & Farkas, 2006).

If high-ranked groups are given all of these learning opportunities and motivating options and resources, which is wonderful, then what learning opportunities are lower-ranked groups typically given (which the above research states are usually composed of students of color and of lower SES)…

Results indicate that African American and Hispanic students learn less over time if they are placed in lower-ranked reading groups for instruction compared to nongrouped students, and these finding are persistent even after controlling for within-class differences in reading proficiency levels.  (Lleras & Rangel, 2009)

Effects of ability groups, both socially and academically, on students placed in low ranked groups have been found in several studies to be significantly harmful and sometimes harmful for students placed in middle ranked groups (Chorzempa & Graham, 2006; Condron, 2008; Tach & Farkas, 2006).  Why?  Most lower ranked groups are given less choice in what they read, less time for independent reading, less time to read silently or be read-to by the teacher, less critical thinking questions, and less expository materials than higher ranked groups, and are instead given more workbooks/dittos, basal reading series, non-reading tasks (when in reading groups), and specific reading skills instruction (Chorzempa & Graham, 2006).

Some may argue that these students need these lower-order thinking assignments, however if this is primarily what they are exposed to then how will they gain the higher-order thinking skills and motivation needed to advance their learning?

There is strong evidence that students placed into low-ranked reading groups learn significantly less than nongrouped students who probably would have been placed into a similar group.  Also, middle-ranked students appear to have no advantage or disadvantage to being middle-grouped compared to being in a nongrouped classroom. (Condron, 2008)

One study found that homogeneous ability grouping has a slight advantage over heterogeneous mixed-ability grouping for middle-ranked groups, while high-ranked groups performed equally well in either type of group and low-ranked groups performed best in heterogeneous groups (Lou et al., 1996).

This finding was slightly different from other findings in that the middle-ranked groups did slightly better in ability groups, but it still confirmed that the low-ranked groups do better in mixed-ability groups (heterogeneous).  This is still not equitable for all students.

Social-Emotional Effects of Ability Grouping and Teacher/Peer Perceptions

A case study of an elementary school in Texas found that the school district’s reaction to the NCLB Act (No Child Left Behind) was to have educators classify students into one of three groups based on practice proficiency test scores—“passers”, “bubble kids”, and “foundation” or “remedial”—in order to implement a “data driven” system.  The presumption was that the “passers” would have no problem passing, the “foundation” or “remedial” kids would probably not pass, and the “bubble” kids would be close.  The “bubble” kids were given extra attention and learning opportunities to ensure they moved up to the proficiency level, thus increasing teachers’ and schools’ pass rates (Booher-Jennings 2005).  This is a form of “educational triage” and some California schools have been reported using the same practice (Rubin, 2004).

Self-fulfilling prophecies were found among students in low-ability within-class (ability) groups and among classes that used within-class (ability) grouping.  Teachers’ perceptions mediated the relationship between level of ability grouping and student achievement.  The achievement gap among students in low- and high-ability within-class grouping increased over the course of the year, and teacher perceptions almost completely accounted for this pattern of increasing differences. (Smith & Jussim, 1998)

In mixed-ability classes where ability grouping was used, there was greater variation in children’s self-concepts than in classes where it was not, despite the fact that there were no significant differences in ability. (Reuman, 1989)

The findings demonstrated that the mathematics self-concepts of those in high-ability mathematics groups were significantly higher than that of those in low-ability groups. There was also a far from perfect correspondence between mathematics ability scores and placement in mathematics ability group. (Macintyre & Ireson, 2002)

The main reasons students gave for preferring mixed ability teaching were related to the ways that peers could help, inspire and motivate each other while avoiding those in the lower sets becoming stigmatized. (Hallam, Ireson, & Davies, 2004)

Most students (elementary) indicated that they would least like to be in the lowest group (74%) while 60% wanted to be in the highest group because it gave them status and a feeling of superiority. Students were aware that different kinds of teaching and activities went on in different groups. Those in the highest group were most satisfied with the activities that they undertook while 54% of those in the lowest group expressed dissatisfaction with the teaching methods adopted.  Most preferred whole-class or individual reading to group work. The main reason expressed for this was related to inclusion; these methods reduced feelings of being left out. (Devine, 1993)

For the lower ability students, the terms used during teasing were those generally accepted as derogatory. The greater the extent of the structured groupings, the greater the apparent stigmatization of those in the lower groups. Stigmatization was least in the school where mixed ability grouping was the norm. (Hallam, Iresona, & Davies, 2004)

So now you are aware of the numerous effects that ability-grouping, at least the way it is most commonly practiced/structured, has on students and equality.  Keep in mind that the above findings do not necessarily mean that ability-grouping itself has mostly negative academic and social effects, but rather that the way ability-grouping is commonly practiced has these effects.  See the recommendations page for some ways of preventing the various harmful effects and inequalities of this type of grouping.

Note: See references page for bibliography