Is Grouping Students Based On Ability in the Classroom the Way to Go?

All my life, I’ve been a fast learner. I remember in second grade, our class read Eric Carle’s The Mixed-Up Chameleon in class. That same night, we were assigned the same story for homework to practice reading. Each day that week, we were supposed to go home and read the same story. Instead of doing the reading, I would go home and cry because I couldn’t stand to read the same story all over again when I already knew what it said. Thus, my mother had me tested to enter the gifted program at my school. Upon entering the program, I would then leave my classroom during English to go to enrichment classes in which I would read higher-level books. This continued throughout elementary school.

In middle school, while still participating in enrichment through the gifted program, my education was also impacted by acceleration. What I mean by this is that students were placed into classes based on ability level. I was in all the blue group classes– classes for students who performed with the most proficiency. The other groups, red and green, were for intermediate and low-achieving groups of students, respectively.

This process, commonly referred to as ability grouping, is long-debated, and for good reason. For some students, such as myself, the process of ability grouping is a benefit to our education as we are able to cover information at a more rigorous pace. However, students who are consistently placed into lower-achieving classes fall into a pattern in which they receive lower expectations, which in turn creates a lower motivation to succeed and excel in the classroom.

Ability grouping can occur in a few different ways. Within-class grouping is a teacher’s practice of putting students of similar ability levels together to form small groups within the same classroom, while between-class grouping is a school’s practice of separating students of different ability levels into different courses altogether. In high schools and some middle schools, between-class grouping can also include cross-grade grouping, where students of different grades but similar ability levels are placed in the same classroom.

Proponents of ability grouping cite the possibility for individualized learning as a major benefit. When students are placed in classrooms according to their ability, instructors are able to adjust the pace of instruction based on the needs of the students. This eliminates the issue of “teaching to the middle,” a practice in which educators teach at a pace geared towards neither the highest nor lowest ability level, opting instead to teach in a manner geared towards the perceived average ability level. This leaves roughly one-third of the class bored and unchallenged an another third confused and requiring further instruction or clarification to fully grasp concepts. By sorting students into classrooms based on ability level, this dilemma is avoided. Additionally, according to study, high-achieving students benefit significantly from ability grouping, allowing them to maximize academic achievement and avoid learning what they already know. Such students are further challenged when placed in classes with faster-paced instruction. Ideally, students at each level are then being challenged in their work.

Drawbacks of ability grouping are that the overall learning culture can then be debilitating for certain students. Individuals placed in lower-achieving groups can get stuck in lower-achieving groups from which they have a potential to advance, especially in between-class groupings. Students placed in low-level tracks will often have no opportunity to advance to higher levels even when they have that potential. Being placed into lower levels can also have an effect on student motivation. Students placed in lower tracks can lose motivation to succeed or to move ahead. Plus, they lose the benefit of having higher-achieving students in the same classroom or group to help their peers understand or serve as motivation. 

Additionally, the system of ability grouping can result in inequality within our school systems, in which high-achieving students are given the best teachers and equipment and encouraged to pursue creative problem solving, while students in lower levels have fewer demands and spend most of their time engaging in routine, unchallenging activities. These consequences also have societal implications, since lower-achieving groups are disproportionately filled with poor and minority students.

So, what is the best option, then? If high-achieving students will be left bored and unsatisfied without achievement grouping, but students placed in low-level classes will be at a significant disadvantage, what is the solution?

One solution is a mixture of both grouped and ungrouped elements within a classroom setting. Combining students into one classroom but sorting students into ability-based groups within it can allow for grouped learning without the negative effects. If students are sorted based on ability level in each subject, or even simply in each lesson, students will be less confined and barred from success if placed in lower achieving groups sometimes. For example, say a student excels in mathematics but needs extra instruction in reading classes. Being placed in higher level math courses and low-level English courses could allow this student to receive the best instruction in both areas without being confined to a low-level track for the rest of their academic career because of their need for more instruction in a certain area.

Additionally, cooperative learning, where students are placed in small groups not based on ability level in which they necessarily depend on one another to achieve learning goals, can maximize learning for students. Cooperative learning includes five facets– positive interdependence, individual accountability, face-to-face interaction, interpersonal and small group social skills, and group processing– which can be implemented in a variety of ways. The goal of this style of learning is to foster cooperative interdependence among students and to allow students of every ability level to succeed.