# data[].attributes.body
This article is just right for both sides since it has a paragraph about the pros of ability grouping and a paragraph about the cons of ability grouping.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Pros & Cons of Ability Grouping in Elementary Schools

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ability grouping first appeared in American education in the 1920s when the use of mental testing was a valued indicator of potential student performance. At the elementary level, ability grouping is the practice of dividing students into groups or classes based on school aptitude. Grouping may occur based on test ...

# data[].attributes.headline
IS ABILITY GROUPING THE WAY TO GO OR SHOULD IT GO AWAY?

# data[].attributes.subject
IS ABILITY GROUPING THE WAY TO GO OR SHOULD IT GO AWAY?

# data[].attributes.body
This article is mostly against ability grouping but has some little information about how ability grouping is good. It is a very credible website and has lots of information

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
From time to time, Education World reposts a previously published article that we think might be of interest to administrators. We hope you find this archived article to be of value and thought provoking. Logic, emotion, and research often clash in the longstanding debate over the advantages and disadvantages of ability grouping (tracking). Should it be left up to the courts to decide whether such grouping is fair or not?
Is ability grouping (or tracking) an efficient way to handle differences in student abilities? Does such grouping benefit students---or does it unfairly label them? Research, logic, and emotion often clash when responding to those questions.

Ability grouping increases student achievement by allowing teachers to focus instruction, proponents say. Teaching a group of like-ability students allows teachers to adjust the pace of instruction to students' needs. For example, a teacher might instruct at a slower pace---providing more repetition and reinforcement---with a group of low-achieving students than he or she would with a group of high achievers. A class of high achievers might be given more opportunities for independent research and cooperative group discussion than a group of low achievers would be given; high achievers might be asked to apply their skills to solving higher-level thinking problems too.

So goes the theory behind grouping by ability.

But is that fair? Is the theory supported by research? And what do the courts have to say about grouping by ability?

In a comprehensive review of research on different types of ability grouping in the elementary school, Robert E. Slavin (1986) found that some forms of grouping can result in increased student achievement. Slavin's review focused on five grouping plans.

Grouping students as a class by ability for all subjects doesn't improve achievement.

Students grouped heterogeneously for most of the school day, but regrouped according to ability for one or two subjects, can improve achievement in those areas for which they are grouped.

Grouping heterogeneously except for reading instruction (commonly referred to as "The Joplin Plan") improves reading achievement.

Nongraded instruction---instruction that groups students according to ability rather than age and that allows students to progress at their own rates---can result in improved achievement.

In-class grouping---a common approach in which teachers break out two or three ability-based groups within a class for instruction---can benefit student achievement. (Slavin's research supports this practice for math instruction. Findings related to reading instruction aren't as conclusive; in-class grouping is so widespread a practice for teaching reading that it's difficult to find "control groups" for such a comparative study.)

Any grouping plan, Slavin concludes, must allow for frequent reevaluation of students' skills, and such grouping must allow for easy reassignment of students who show progress.

"UNTRACK" THOSE SCHOOLS!

Ability grouping doesn't improve achievement and is harmful to students. Such grouping should be banned, says Anne Wheelock, author of Crossing the Tracks: How "Untracking" Can Save America's Schools (New Press, 1992). The practice of grouping by ability is too widespread and too widely accepted, Wheelock adds.

Wheelock says that about 60 percent of elementary schools practice some form of whole-class ability grouping, including Chapter 1 classes and special classes for gifted students. Survey results published in Education Week (see Resources below) in 1995 found that two-thirds of U.S. high schools were at least moderately tracked.

Ability tracking is harmful for a number of reasons, Wheelock told Instructor in A Talk with Anne Wheelock.

The criteria used to group kids are based on subjective perceptions and fairly narrow views of intelligence.

Tracking leads students to take on labels---both in their own minds as well as in the minds of their teachers---that are usually associated with the pace of learning (such as "slow" or "fast" learners). Because of this, we end up confusing students' pace of learning with their capacity to learn.

We associate students' placement with the type of learners they are and therefore create different expectations for different groups of students.

Once students are grouped, they generally stay at that level for their school careers, and the gap between achievement and levels becomes exaggerated over time. The notion that students' achievement levels at any given time will predict their achievement in the future becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Wheelock doesn't dismiss all forms of ability grouping. For instance, she notes, a group might be set up within a class to help students who are having difficulty with a specific skill. Or a group might be formed to "pre-teach" a skill to a group of students who might have difficulty grasping a concept.

ABILITY GROUPING'S EVERLASTING EFFECTS

Carol Nelson tells the stories of "Rick" and "Monica," two of her college students who were majoring in elementary education in Organizing for Effective Reading Instruction. Those two students talked about the effects on them of ability grouping when they were in elementary school.

Rick wrote about why he always worked so hard to remain in the middle group. "The higher group, you see, always had so much stuff to do and I never saw those kids out to recess because they had to stay in and finish what they had started. Now the lower group was not the group to be in either. Even as young as first grade, I knew what it meant to be in the lower group and how those kids were thought of as "lower" than the rest of us. This is the problem with labeling and grouping."
Monica wrote "I have nothing but bad memories about my reading groups in elementary school. I was constantly being left behind and humiliated by my teacher No attempt to help me as an individual by my teacher was ever made---and if it had, it probably wouldn't have been a pleasant one. I think that teachers should be more patient with those students who have reading problems and maybe offer other ways to help than put them in the low group."

BUT IS ABILITY GROUPING LEGAL?

Writing in Harvard Educational Review (see Resources below), Kevin G. Welner and Jeanne Oakes assert that the courts can play an important role in "detracking" America's schools. They point to research (Fullwood, 1991) that revealed that 53 percent of White Americans regarded African Americans as likely to be less intelligent that Whites; 55 percent of White Americans felt Latinos were likely to be less intelligent that Whites. Where does that perception come from? The perception might be based, in part, on school systems that track their students according to ability. Brown v. Board of Education (1954) might have started the era of desegregation, Oakes says, but ability grouping has canceled out many of the possible benefits of that landmark decision. Tracking, in many cases, is just another form of racial segregation. One test of the use of ability grouping was highlighted in an article which appeared in the magazine Principal (see Resources below). In that article, authors Perry A. Zirkel and Ivan B. Gluckman wrote:

Approximately half the students in the Augusta, Arkansas, school district are African American. The district has used ability grouping since 1970, when it was forced to dismantle its segregated system. In 1991, an African American parent filed suit, claiming that the district's ability grouping and placement practices violated the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause.
In 1992. . . . the district changed its policy of maintaining three homogeneous ability groups (low, middle, and high) for each class, an arrangement which saw a disproportionate number of African American students in the lower ability groups. Under the new policy, grades K-3 would gradually move from homogenous to heterogeneous grouping over a three-year period, and grades 4-6 would retain homogenous grouping only for math, reading, and language arts under a so-called "modified Joplin plan."

The court decided that the Augusta district's pervasive ability grouping policy for grades K-3 violated the Fourteenth Amendment, but that the modified Joplin plan for grades 4-6 did not violate the Constitution [Simmons v. Hooks, 843 F. Supp. 1296 (E.D. Ark. 1994)]. The difference appeared to be the evidence, in the form of expert testimony, that grouping for reading had beneficial effects that outweighed the stigma of homogeneity.

In their conclusion, Zirkel and Gluckman note, "the legal boundaries are, on the whole, notably broad with regard to ability grouping. Principals should recognize that the answer to the issue of heterogeneous versus homogeneous groups is in many cases a matter for educators, not judges, to determine."

THE DEBATE CONTINUES

So is tracking a fair way for educators to deal with the wide disparity in students' abilities? Or is it a form of discrimination that has few benefits for students and ought to be outlawed? The issue has been the subject of debate for many years---and will be for years to come. One thing is certain: Further research is essential for educators (and, perhaps, for the courts) charged with making informed decisions about the advantages or disadvantages of ability grouping.

Article by Gary Hopkins
Education World® Editor-in-Chief
Copyright © 2006 Education World

Related Resources

It's the Law: Ability Grouping
By Perry A. Zirkel and Ivan B. Gluckman,Principal, September 1995.

Ability Grouping: The New Susceptibility of School Tracking Systems to Legal Challenges
By Kevin G. Welner and Jeanne Oakes,Harvard Educational Review, Fall 1996.

Tracking May Not Be as Common a Practice as Assumed, Study Says
The results of a survey published inEducation Week, May 3, 1995.

An Organizational Analysis of the Effects of Ability Grouping
A study of the effects of ability grouping in 92 honors, regular, and remedial English classes in eighth and ninth grade, by Adam Gamoran, Martin Nystrand, Mark Berends, and Paul C. LePore,American Educational Research Journal, Winter 1995.

Learning: Tracking
By Naomi Barko,Parents, January 1996.

Related Sites

Does Ability Grouping Help or Hurt? -- A Talk with Anne Wheelock
Grouping students by ability is one of the most talked-about topics in education. Does it benefit students? Inhibit their learnin? Not matter?

Ability Grouping in Elementary Schools
An ERIC Digest report by John Hollifield. This report summarizes the conclusions of Robert E. Slavin's 1986 comprehensive review of research on the different types of ability grouping in elementary schools.

Organizing for Effective Reading Instruction
An ERIC Digest report by Carol Nelson looks at studies of within-class reading ability grouping.

Originally published 07/18/1997
Last updated 02/24/2009

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is Ability Grouping the Way to Go---Or Should It Go Away?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
From time to time, Education World reposts a previously published article that we think might be of interest to administrators. We hope you find this archived article to be of value and thought provoking. Logic, emotion, and research often clash in the longstanding debate over the advantages and disadvantages of ability grouping (tracking).

# data[].attributes.headline
More Teachers Are Grouping Kids By Ability

# data[].attributes.subject
More Teachers Are Grouping Kids By Ability

# data[].attributes.body
This article is both for and against ability grouping, so it is good for both sides. It talks about how the percentage of teachers using ability grouping went up. It is a very credible website and use facts from other websites or places in the article.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Practice of grouping students based on ability was frowned upon for decades

No Child Left Behind may have played role in the return to grouping

Goal is to improve reading and match achievement

New findings based on more than 20 years of research suggest that despite decades of controversy, elementary school teachers now feel fine placing students in "ability groups."

The research, out Monday from the centrist Brookings Institution's Brown Center on American Education, finds that between 1998 and 2009, the percentage of fourth-grade teachers who said they created ability-based reading groups skyrocketed from 28% to 71%. In math, between 1996 and 2011, the practice rose from 40% to 61%. The practice remained fairly constant in eighth-grade math, rising from 71% to 76%. Data for other eighth-grade subjects was incomplete or inconclusive.

Brookings researcher Tom Loveless said the practice, frowned upon for decades and dubbed a civil-rights issue in the 1990s, likely gave way in the last decade to new demands from the federal 2002 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law, which required schools to focus on struggling students in reading and math.

"Despite decades of vehement criticism and mountains of documents urging schools to abandon their use, tracking and ability grouping persist - and for the past decade or so, have thrived," Loveless said.

Grouping works within a single class and is typically done just at the elementary school level. Tracking is a larger, more institutionalized form of grouping that involves moving students into different classes. It generally takes place in middle school and high school.

The data are based on teacher surveys conducted as part of the federal government's National Assessment of Educational Progress, a reading and math test administered to thousands of students every two years.

Loveless said the data may downplay the extent to which teachers of younger students are now grouping them. Grouping, he said, peaks around first grade.

Patrick Boodey, principal of Woodman Park School in Dover, N.H., said the new findings on ability grouping are accurate but added that teachers have gotten more sophisticated: They now use "dynamic grouping" that moves students as their skills improve. Groups sometimes change week to week. "It's constant," he said.

For decades beginning in the 1970s, separating students by ability came under intense criticism from some researchers, with many saying it often amounted to separating students by race and class. By the early 1990s, several civil rights and education organizations, including the Children's Defense Fund and the NAACP , condemned the practice.

Like other public institutions, Loveless said, schools keep "an ear to the ground" for public opinion: When a practice becomes controversial, teachers back off. But after the mid-1990s, the controversy died, and schools "returned to both practices," although the education establishment hasn't necessarily changed its mind: The National Education Association (NEA), which represents 3 million teachers and other school employees, supports the elimination of tracking.

In a statement on its website, the union says that for struggling students, "a steady diet of lower expectations leads to a low level of motivation toward school." While acknowledging that proponents see grouping as a way to tailor instruction to students' needs, NEA notes critics' claims that it "channels poor and minority students to low tracks where they receive a lower quality of instruction."

Several factors were likely at play in the quiet change, Loveless said, including an uptick in computerized instruction, which naturally segregates students by skill levels; also, the rise of accountability requirements under NCLB has pushed schools to pay more attention to students who are just below "proficiency" levels in reading and math.
http://www.brookings.edu/2013-brown-center-report
Boodey, the New Hampshire principal, said ability grouping "has been going on since the one-room schoolhouse - what we call it has changed over time," he said. He added, "As a teacher you know in your heart you need to meet the needs of each child."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
More teachers are grouping kids by ability

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Practice of grouping students based on ability was frowned upon for decades No Child Left Behind may have played role in the return to grouping Goal is to improve reading and match achievement New findings based on more than 20 years of research suggest that despite decades of controversy, elementary school teachers now feel fine placing students in "ability groups."

# data[].attributes.body
this article is pretty even split with a lot of negetive and a lot of positive

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Ability grouping of students is one of the oldest and most controversial issues in elementary and secondary schools. Hundreds of research studies have examined the effects of the two most common variants: between-class and within-class ability grouping. Between-class grouping refers to a school's practice of forming classrooms that contain students of similar ability. Within-class grouping refers to a teacher's practice of forming groups of students of similar ability within an individual class.

This digest summarizes the conclusions of Robert E. Slavin's 1986 comprehensive review of research on the different types of ability grouping in elementary schools. The purpose of his review was to identify grouping practices that promote student achievement.

WHY USE ABILITY GROUPING?

In theory, ability grouping increases student achievement by reducing the disparity in student ability levels, and this increases the likelihood that teachers can provide instruction that is neither too easy nor too hard for most students. The assumption is that ability grouping allows the teacher (1) to increase the pace and raise the level of instruction for high achievers, and (2) to provide more individual attention, repetition, and review for low achievers. The high achievers benefit from having to compete with one another, and the low achievers benefit from not having to compete with their more able peers.

One of the main arguments against ability grouping is that the practice creates classes or groups of low achievers who are deprived of the example and stimulation provided by high achievers. Labeling students according to ability and assigning them to low-achievement groups may also communicate self-fulfilling low expectations. Further, groups with low performance often receive a lower quality of instruction than other groups. Slavin sees as the most compelling argument against ability grouping its creation of academic elites, a practice which goes against democratic ideals.

HOW DOES GROUPING AFFECT STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT?

In his review, Slavin examines evidence on the achievement effects of five comprehensive ability grouping plans in elementary schools. His review draws conclusions about the effectiveness of the following grouping plans: ability grouped class assignment, regrouping for reading or mathematics, the Joplin Plan, nongraded plans, and within-class ability grouping.

Ability Grouped Class Assignment. This grouping plan places students in one self-contained class on the basis of ability or achievement. In some departmentalized upper elementary grades, the class may move as a whole from teacher to teacher. Evidence suggests that ability grouped class assignment does not enhance student achievement in the elementary school.

Regrouping for Reading and Mathematics. Under this plan, students are assigned to heterogeneous homeroom classes for most of the day, but are regrouped according to achievement level for one or more subjects. For example, all students from various homeroom classes of one grade level might be re-sorted into ability grouped classes for a period of reading instruction. Results indicate that regrouping for reading or mathematics can improve student achievement. However, the level and pace of instruction must be adapted to achievement level. Furthermore, students must not be regrouped for more than one or two subjects.

The Joplin Plan. This grouping plan assigns students to heterogeneous classes for most of the day but regroups them across grade levels for reading instruction. For example, a reading class at the fifth grade, first semester level might include high achieving fourth graders, average achieving fifth graders, and low achieving sixth graders. There is strong evidence that the Joplin Plan increases reading achievement.

Nongraded Plan. This plan includes a variety of related grouping plans that place students in flexible groups according to performance rather than age. Thus, grade-level designations are eliminated. The curriculum for each subject is divided into levels through which students progress at their own rates. Well- controlled studies conducted in regular schools generally support the use of comprehensive nongraded plans.

Within-class Ability Grouping. This plan is generally used for reading or mathematics. Teachers assign students within their classroom to one of a small number of groups based on ability level. These groups work on different materials at rates unique to their needs and abilities. Too few studies have been conducted on the use of within-class ability grouping in reading to support or challenge its effectiveness. Part of the problem is that within-class grouping is so widespread in reading instruction that it is difficult to conduct research that includes a control group not using the practice. Research on within-class ability grouping in mathematics clearly supports the practice, especially when only two or three groups are formed. The positive effects are slightly greater for low-achieving students than for average or high achievers.

WHAT SHOULD SCHOOLS AND TEACHERS DO ABOUT ABILITY GROUPING?

Slavin concludes that schools and teachers should use the methods proved most effective, such as within-class ability grouping in mathematics, nongraded plans in reading, and the Joplin Plan. The review recommends that schools find alternatives to the use of ability grouped class assignment, such as assigning students to self-contained classes according to general ability or performance level.

Based on his examination of the features of successful and unsuccessful practices, Slavin recommends that the following elements be included in successful ability grouping plans:

--Students should identify primarily with a heterogeneous class. They should be regrouped by ability only when reducing heterogeneity is particularly important for learning, as is the case with math or reading instruction.

--Grouping plans should reduce student heterogeneity in the specific skill being taught, not in IQ or overall achievement level.

--Grouping plans should allow for frequent reassessment of student placement and for easy reassignment based on student progress.

--Teachers must vary the level and pace of instruction according to student levels of readiness and learning rates in regrouped classes.

--Only a small number of groups should be formed in within-class ability grouping. This will allow the teacher to provide adequate direct instruction for each group.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

Slavin, Robert E. ABILITY GROUPING AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS: A BEST-EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS. Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on Elementary and Middle Schools, 1986.

The appearance of any information in the Davidson Institute's Database does not imply an endorsement by, or any affiliation with, the Davidson Institute. All information presented is for informational purposes only and is solely the opinion of and the responsibility of the author. Although reasonable effort is made to present accurate information, the Davidson Institute makes no guarantees of any kind, including as to accuracy or completeness. Use of such information is at the sole risk of the reader.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ability grouping of students is one of the oldest and most controversial issues in elementary and secondary schools. Hundreds of research studies have examined the effects of the two most common variants: between-class and within-class ability grouping. Between-class grouping refers to a school's practice of forming classrooms that contain students of similar ability.

# data[].attributes.headline
The negative effects of ability grouping 

# data[].attributes.subject
The negative effects of ability grouping 

# data[].attributes.body
This article has lots of information against ability grouping, so it's good for anyone who is against ability grouping. It contains lots of helpful information as well. It is also pretty credible.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Australian Council for Educational Research - ACER

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Do you use ability grouping in your classroom? New research suggests this approach may be hindering those in the lower attainment groups because their self-confidence is likely to suffer.

In a report released this month in the Cambridge Journal of Education, English and Mathematics teachers across 82 schools in England were surveyed about their experiences with, and approaches to teaching 'low-attaining' students.

According to the authors of Nurturing learning or encouraging dependency? Teacher constructions of students in lower attainment groups in English secondary schools, the ability grouping technique is likely limiting for students learning at a low-attaining level.

The results at a glance

After surveying 597 teachers with an online questionnaire, the report concluded that ability grouping in lessons can be particularly harmful to the future learning progress of students placed in low-attainment groups. According to the report, the overall learning culture that ability grouping creates inhibits learning opportunities for some students and can leave them stuck at a level of learning they have potential to advance from.

The report also says the dialogue used by teachers when discussing low and high-attaining students demonstrated a universal agreement of how all students in these groups are learning. The report notes that most teachers perceive lower-attaining students to be dependent learners, and higher ability learners to be independent. It is therefore common for a culture to exist in many schools where individual learners are viewed to only have the traits and potential of the learning group they have been allocated to.

How are teachers using ability groups to educate?

In England group-specific learning is routine. 'Grouping students by their prior attainment or "ability" in specific subjects is a common practice in English secondary schools with OECD (2013) figures suggesting that 95 per cent of students are taught Mathematics in attainment groups,' the report says. 'Our questionnaire and interview data suggest that in their practice teachers adopt different kinds of pedagogical approaches depending on the attainment level of the class they are teaching.'

In the schools included in this study, teachers never had more than four attainment groups in their classroom and the group with the smallest number of students was always the low-attainment group. Nearly all the schools surveyed placed students in particular attainment groups purely based on their previous attainment levels.

The negative effects of attainment groups

The authors of study were clear in their conclusion that, for low-attaining students, group-specific teaching can limit their learning opportunities and create a 'cycle of restricted opportunity'.

A Mathematics teacher interviewed in the report suggested that group-specific teaching is tainted with judgements about student behaviour. The authors cite this as an example of 'how a student's placement in the lowest attainment group results in misrecognition whereby his/her placement in the attainment grouping hierarchy can be interpreted by teachers as reflecting the student's innate "ability".

'Some of our Set 6 pupils could easily be in a hierarchical Set 4 class,' the Mathematics teacher says. 'But if you get a pupil into a Set 6 [bottom] class, you get treated like a Set 6 pupil, and a lot of the work you do is repetitive and dull, and doesn't take your forward.'

When teaching low-attainment groups, taking on a 'caring' role is required, some teachers say. 'You're gently pushing them forward and not always kind of expecting too much of them ... lots of questioning in there to see what they actually do understand,' one English teacher reports.

Another teacher has a similar perspective: 'I think you've got to work harder on relationships with the less able ones because they've got to trust you because they've been through schooling being told that they're not good enough ... whereas with the top sets I'm very clinical ... just do what you need to do and get out,' the teacher says.

The report says that employing different pedagogical practices for different attainment levels can unintentionally create a barrier to a low-attaining student's opportunity to develop as a learner. This, in turn, can create a general culture at a school which assumes different rigid traits about learners purely based on their learning group.

What might this mean for students?

Overall, the report suggests that ability groups may be inhibiting low-attaining students' future learning progress.

'Once a student has been placed in a lower attainment group, the structures of grouping practices and the accompanying school cultures may ... constrain the extent to which attention is given to each student's past and present factors of low attainment, and crucially how these contributing factors may be countered to enable future learning progress,' the report says.

Several teachers reported that with dependent learners comes a greater need to develop a strong relationship with students. While such an emphasis on strong teacher-student relationships may mean that peer support activities may be being disregarded, the authors believe the peer support approach could actually aid in encouraging lower-ability students' independence from teachers.
References:
Mazenod, A., Francis, B., Archer, L., Hodgen, J., Taylor, B., Tereshchenko, A., & Pepper, D. (2018). Nurturing learning or encouraging dependency? Teacher constructions of students in lower attainment groups in English secondary schools. Cambridge Journal of Education, 1-16.

Do you teach using ability grouping? In your own school context, what are the positives and negatives of this teaching method?

Thinking about your own experiences, if you were talking to a new teacher about students at your school, would you have a similar discourse to the teachers featured in this study? Reflect on whether you believe this is an accurate representation of students at your school.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The negative effects of ability grouping

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Do you use ability grouping in your classroom? New research suggests this approach may be hindering those in the lower attainment groups because their self-confidence is likely to suffer. In a report released this month in the Cambridge Journal of Education, English and Mathematics teachers across 82 schools in England were surveyed about their experiences with, and approaches to teaching 'low-attaining' students.

# data[].attributes.body
This article is for and against ability grouping. It talks about how ability grouping can help and how it can not help. It gives a lot of information and is pretty much credible.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Grouping students by ability is one of the most talked-about topics in education. Does it benefit students? Inhibit their learning? Not matter? To bring you this report, Senior Editor Meg Bozzone spoke to Anne Wheelock, author of Crossing the Tracks: How "Untracking" Can Save America's Schools (New Press, 1992).

Does ability grouping - or tracking - enhance academic achievement?
No, and research tells us that it is not a neutral or benign practice, either. Although it is widespread and widely accepted, ability grouping generally depresses student achievement and is harmful to kids.

Why is tracking harmful?
It's harmful for a number of reasons.

The criteria we use to group kids are based on subjective perceptions and fairly narrow views of intelligence.

Tracking leads students to take on labels - both in their own minds as well as in the minds of their teachers - that are usually associated with the pace oflearning (such as the "slow" or "fast" learners). Because of this, we end upconfusing students' pace of learning with their capacity to learn.

We associate students' placement with the type of learners they are and therefore create different expectations for different groups of students.

Once students are grouped, they generally stay at that level for their school careers, and the gap between achievement levels becomes exaggerated over time.The notion that students' achievement levels at any given time will predict their achievement in the future becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

How common is ability grouping?
About 60 percent of elementary schools are breaking up students into differentlevels in every grade, or practicing some kind of whole-class grouping by ability - including creating Chapter 1 or gifted classes. While some schoolsinstitute rigid distinctions in the early grades - such as grouping students intotransitional first-grade classes - others wait until fourth or fifth grade.
What does tracking look like at the elementary level?
Because teachers tend to give students a curriculum that matches their label, the "most able" or "fast" learners generally read whole books, go to the library frequently, do independent research, enjoy more choices, have additional access to the computer, go on extra field trips, have opportunities to collaborate on projects with community members, have a mentor, and so on. On the other hand,"slower" learners tend to read from the basal, do worksheets, have fewer choices,and so on.

Are there advantages to grouping kids homogeneously for certain subjects,such as reading?
Yes. Schools I've found that are exploring alternatives to tracking set uptemporary groups for students who have similar skill levels, such as groups whoneed help grasping the concept of subtraction. Kids get extra help, not "insteadof" help.

What other alternatives to tracking have you seen?
Sometimes teachers pre-teach groups of kids they think need help grasping a concept or skill. Before the topic is introduced to the rest of the class, the teacher works with the group to jump-start their learning. These groups are temporary.

Other schools offer double periods for particular subjects, such as additional reading or math lessons so kids have multiple chances to cover the topic - orprovide extra support through after-school programs.

Is cooperative learning an important strategy in heterogeneously grouped classrooms?
Cooperative learning is one of many strategies, but it can't stand alone. It needs to be a linchpin of a high-content, activity-oriented, inquiry-based curriculum that provides access to all ability levels.

Are gifted children challenged enough in heterogeneously grouped classrooms?
If the curriculum is rich and varied, yes. So teachers should commit to creating a high-expectations climate and an engaging, hands-on curriculum for all.

In a sixth-grade class I visited, for example, students who were learning about the hearing impaired took turns translating announcements for me in sign language. They also had set up exchanges with schools for deaf children, and were reading personal memoirs of deaf children, composing a novel featuring a hearing-impaired character, testing their hearing at different decibel levels and graphing the results, monitoring their learning with portfolios, and so on. There was room in that unit for all kinds of kids to do all kinds of work. The teacher offered extra help to those who needed it and made sure gifted students had opportunities to further explore their learning.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Hot Topic: Does Ability Grouping Help or Hurt? | Scholastic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Grouping students by ability is one of the most talked-about topics in education. Does it benefit students? Inhibit their learning? Not matter? To bring you this report, Senior Editor Meg Bozzone spoke to Anne Wheelock, author of Crossing the Tracks: How "Untracking" Can Save America's Schools (New Press, 1992).

# data[].attributes.body
NEA i mostly against ability grouping, but also states some reasons why it's helpful. NEA researched that ability grouping puts labels on students, and fails to put good things on students, but it has teachers to understand the pace of instruction

# data[].attributes.headline
Gifted Students Benefit From Ability Grouping, Acceleration

# data[].attributes.subject
Gifted Students Benefit From Ability Grouping, Acceleration

# data[].attributes.body
This article is for ability grouping. It has one or two facts against it though. The article says ability grouping helps higher level kids move on and feel confident.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Schools should use both ability grouping and acceleration to help academically talented students, reports a new Northwestern University study that examined a century of research looking at the controversial subject.

Ability grouping places students of similar skills and abilities in the same classes. Acceleration, most commonly known as grade skipping, subject acceleration, or early admission into kindergarten or college, gives students the chance access opportunities earlier or progress more rapidly.

The widely-debated educational techniques effectively increase academic achievement at a low cost and can benefit millions of students in U.S. school systems, according to the study, " What One Hundred Years of Research Says About Ability Grouping and Acceleration for Students K-12" published in Review of Educational Research.

"Although acceleration is widely supported by research as an effective strategy for meeting the needs of advanced learners, it's still rarely used and most schools do no systematically look for students who need it, said study co-author Paula Olszewski-Kubilius, director of the Center for Talent Development at Northwestern's School of Education and Social Policy.

The U.S. spends nearly $600 billion a year on public education, but research questions whether the resources are reaching high-performing students. A recent policy brief reported that 20 to 40 percent of elementary and middle school students perform above grade level in reading and 10 to 30 percent do so in math, according to the study.

Proponents of ability and acceleration point to benefits for children who are under-challenged in their grade-level classroom. With a more homogenous learning environment, it's easier for teachers to match their instruction to a student's needs and the students benefit from interacting with comparable academic peers.

Critics argue that dividing the students can mean the loss of leaders or role models, greater achievement gaps and lower self-esteem for struggling students.

But the research indicated that students benefited from within-class grouping, cross-grade subject grouping and gifted and talented programs, although the benefits were negligible for between class groupings.

Accelerated students performed significantly better than non-accelerated same-age peers, and comparable to non-accelerated older students, according to the study.

(Others) have said education should "avoid trying to teach students what they already know," the authors wrote. "Based on the nearly century's worth of research, we believe the data clearly suggest that ability grouping and acceleration are two such strategies for achieving this goal.

Though hardly the final word on such a hot-button issue, the new study helps clarify the academic effects of ability grouping and acceleration.

"The conversation needs to evolve beyond whether such interventions can ever work," they wrote. The bulk of evidence over the last century "suggests that academic acceleration and most forms of ability grouping like cross-grade subject grouping and special grouping for gifted students can greatly improve K-12 students' academic achievement."

Northwestern's Saiying Steenbergen-Hu, research director and assistant research professor for the Center for Talent Development was the lead author of the report, which was also co-authored by Matthew Makel of Duke University's Talent Identification Program. The authors reviewed 172 empirical studies on the efficacy of ability grouping as well as 125 studies on acceleration.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gifted Students Benefit From Ability Grouping, Acceleration

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Schools should use both ability grouping and acceleration to help academically talented students, reports a new Northwestern University study that examined a century of research looking at the controversial subject. Ability grouping places students of similar skills and abilities in the same classes.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.teachermagazine.com.au/articles/the-negative-effects-of-ability-grouping

this article gives a lot of info about ability group.they are against ability grouping because they say it doesn't improve your grades and it makes people depressed because of there grades .

# data[].attributes.body
this article is split down the middle with three reasons of for and against . the article shows that it could improve the pace of students of all groups

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Does Grouping Students By Ability Work?

One of the oldest and the most controversial forms of education is ability grouping of students. It has always been a topic of debate among academic researchers and child psychologists whether students should be differentiated and grouped according to their academic aptitude.

Even after years of debates and controversies about this dynamic topic, the question has still been persistent - does grouping students by ability work? Ability grouping can be within the classroom or by separating students into classrooms based on ability. Many believe that rather than maintaining heterogeneous classrooms, homogeneous classrooms created based on aptitude would be more effective and worthwhile. Other experts believe that this may create a feeling of inferiority among students who are not in the "smarter" classrooms, which could result in depression, lack of concentration, and other destructive symptoms. Thus, during a discussion about ability grouping, it is important that consider all the pros and cons.
Advantages of Ability Grouping
Proponents of ability grouping use the following arguments in support of their stance -

1. Increases pace: Ability grouping helps in placing similar students in one classroom or group. Thus, it helps in increasing the pace of advancement of the study skills of the students at higher levels of ability. The higher standard students can grasp concepts within a shorter time as compared to other students and can be allowed to move forward. Otherwise, in a heterogeneous classroom, the better students would have to wait for the others to understand a particular topic, as a result losing time and decreasing the pace of their growth and development.

2. Individual attention: Providing individual attention is difficult in a heterogeneous classroom, since teachers almost have no choice but to give equal attention to all students present. However, in the case of a homogeneous classroom, teachers can concentrate on teaching the students at the pace of that particular group, thus enhancing their learning process and helping them to pick up the lessons faster than otherwise.

3. Boosts confidence: In a heterogeneous classroom, the weaker students sometimes have self-concept issues due to the presence of more intelligent students who grab the upper ranks in class. But in the case of a homogeneous classroom, the other students are at about the same level. Thus, it boosts their self-confidence and determination.
Disadvantages of Ability Grouping
Those against ability grouping use the following arguments to discourage its use -

1. Feelings of segregation: Dividing students into classes based on ability can be difficult for young students to manage, and can set up a kind of "caste system" within our schools, causing unnecessary division and arguments.

2. Methods of division: What system can be used to divide students that is fair and equitable? Standardized tests may not accurately reflect the abilities of the students, and some students could be placed in the wrong groups.

3. Teacher expectations: Even if they did not do so consciously, teachers may treat students in the different groups as superior of inferior based on their groupings, leading to the perception by the students that they are not talented enough to do as well as their peers in other groups.

If your school is considering the possibility of using ability grouping as an educational tool, help them to consider the above advantages and disadvantages before making any policy decisions.

More Information On Ability Grouping of Students

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
One of the oldest and the most controversial forms of education is ability grouping of students. It has always been a topic of debate among academic researchers and child psychologists whether students should be differentiated and grouped according to their academic aptitude.

# data[].attributes.headline
Synthesis of Research / Is Ability Grouping Equitable?

# data[].attributes.subject
Synthesis of Research / Is Ability Grouping Equitable?

# data[].attributes.body
This article is against ability grouping as a practice to handle student differences. The author cites that ability grouping does not increase achievement and is actually inequitable.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
October 1992 | Volume 50 | Number 2
Untracking for Equity Pages 11-17

Adam Gamoran

Drawing on the best research we have on grouping, I want to describe conditions that make one system or the other more likely to result in high achievement that is equitably distributed. Then I'll look at the challenges educators face depending on which approach to grouping they take. But, first, let's clarify two terms.

Tracking vs. Grouping

"Curriculum tracking" and "ability grouping" are sometimes used interchangeably. I use "tracking" to mean broad, programmatic divisions that separate students for all academic subjects. For example, high school tracks divide students into academic, general, and vocational programs. Elementary schools "track" students when they divide them into separate classes for the entire day.

I use "ability grouping" to refer to divisions among students for particular subjects, such as special class assignments for math or within-class groups for reading. "Ability," strictly speaking, however, is not usually the criterion for grouping. Rather, students are typically divided according to measured or perceived performance in school. Because school performance is related to social inequality outside the school, such divisions contribute to the separation of students from different racial, ethnic, and social backgrounds (Oakes et al. 1992).

Achievement Effects of Grouping and Tracking

To consider the effects of ability grouping, we need to keep two questions in mind. First, how does grouping affect the overall level of achievement in the school? This is a question about "productivity." Would the school produce higher achievement if ability grouping were eliminated?

Second, how does grouping affect the distribution of achievement in the school? This is a question about "inequality." Would achievement be more equally distributed in the absence of ability grouping? In the past, advocates of grouping have tended to focus on the first question, and critics have emphasized the second. To engage in a balanced discussion, we must examine both.

Grouping and productivity. Little evidence supports the claim that tracking or grouping by ability produces higher overall achievement than heterogeneous grouping. At the elementary level, most grouping systems fail to raise achievement. Some forms of subject-specific grouping-particularly within-class grouping for math and cross-grade grouping for reading-tend to have positive effects on overall achievement (Slavin 1987). The issue has received less attention at the secondary level, probably because almost all American secondary schools have some degree of tracking (Oakes 1985).

In a well-designed British study, Fogelman (1983) and Kerckhoff (1986) followed more than 9,000 students in grouped and ungrouped secondary schools for a five-year period, finding little difference in average scores on standardized tests of math and reading achievement. The absence of overall differences between types of schools, however, masked important differences that occurred within the grouped schools.

Grouping and inequality. In the British study, there were no average differences between grouped and ungrouped schools because within the grouped schools, high-group students performed better than similar students in ungrouped schools, but low-group students did worse. Students in remedial classes performed especially poorly compared to ungrouped students with similar family backgrounds and initial achievement. With low-group losses offsetting high-group gains, the effects on productivity were about zero, but the impact on inequality was substantial.

In the United States, high school tracking results in similar increases in inequality. In a national survey that followed more than 20,000 students from grades 10-12, academic track students gained significantly more on tests of math, science, reading, vocabulary, writing, and civics, compared to similar students in general and vocational tracks (Gamoran 1987). In fact, achievement gaps between students in different tracks widened more than the overall disparity between students who dropped out of school after 10th grade and those who stayed in school. This means that which program a student pursued in high school mattered more for achievement than whether or not he or she was in school! Unfortunately, studies like this one do not show whether increasing inequality occurred in the context of rising or falling achievement for the school as a whole, because tracked and untracked schools were not compared.

Elementary school studies also show increasing inequality over time (Weinstein 1976, Hallinan and Sorensen 1983, Gamoran 1986). Even when overall achievement rises, inequality may grow because high-group students often gain more than students in low-ability groups (Oakes et al. 1992).

Slavin's "best evidence syntheses." Perhaps the most comprehensive and careful reviews of research on ability grouping are Robert Slavin's reports of grouping and achievement in elementary (1987) and secondary (1990) schools. Other than the elementary school exceptions noted above, Slavin argued that ability grouping has no effects on either productivity or inequality: grouped and ungrouped schools produce about the same level of achievement, and neither high, nor low, nor average groups obtain any special benefit or suffer a particular loss due to grouping. Slavin reached these conclusions after examining a diverse array of studies conducted over a 60-year period. Some of the studies showed positive effects; others yielded negative results, for productivity and inequality, as a result of ability grouping. Because the results averaged out to about zero, Slavin concluded that ability grouping has no effects and that the effects that appeared in many studies resulted from random or systematic errors of measurement (Slavin 1990).

I think another interpretation is more likely: the diversity of results does not mean the true effects are zero but, rather, that ability grouping has different effects depending on where and how it is implemented. The studies Slavin reviewed provided almost no information on what occurred inside the classrooms after students were assigned. In some studies, teachers may have provided exactly the same instruction to the grouped and ungrouped classes, and there would be little reason to expect achievement benefits or detriments to ability grouping. In other studies, teaching quality may have favored one group or the other, leading to outcomes that differed by group. Slavin's ultimate conclusion echoes a finding that is more than half a century old: ability grouping has no effects on achievement unless teachers use it to provide different instruction to different groups.

I conclude that grouping and tracking rarely add to overall achievement in a school, but they often contribute to inequality. This finding is most consistent for high school tracking, but it is not uncommon in other forms and at other levels. Typically, it means that high-track students are gaining and low-track students are falling farther behind. But the effects of ability grouping are not the same in every context, and we need to discover how they come about in order to improve productivity and reduce inequality.

Sources of Achievement Inequality

Why does tracking often benefit high achievers but not their counterparts in other groups? Most research on grouping and achievement has failed to consider how students were treated after they were assigned to their classes. Fortunately, a number of case studies and a few surveys provide information on what goes on in different groups and tracks. These reports suggest that the quality of instruction and the climate for learning favors high-level groups and honors classes over low groups and remedial classes.

Unequal instruction. At the elementary level, several researchers have documented fast-paced reading instruction in high-level groups and slow-moving progress in low groups. This occurs for both within-class and between-class grouping (Barr and Dreeben 1983, Gamoran 1986, Rowan and Miracle 1983). From these studies, one cannot tell whether slower instruction in low groups meets the needs of these students or unnecessarily holds them back. When middle- and low-group students of similar prior achievement are compared, middle-group students gain more, suggesting that slow-paced instruction contributes to the low-group deficit. This interpretation is bolstered by a recent survey of elementary school mathematics classes, in which middle- and low-group students were significantly more likely than high-group students to say their class was too easy (Coley et. al. 1992). Other researchers indicate that low reading groups offer a less conducive learning environment, with more interruptions than middle and high groups (Allington 1980, Eder 1981).

Differences in context and climate have also been described at the secondary level. First, college-track students take more academic courses than students in other tracks, contributing to their achievement advantage (Gamoran 1987). Second, observers report that high-track teachers are more enthusiastic and spend more time preparing (Rosenbaum 1976, Oakes 1991). Teachers may compete for the opportunity to teach honors and accelerated classes, and those with more experience or better reputations tend to win the privilege (Finley 1984, Oakes 1991). Although problem solving and critical thinking are not especially common, they are more likely to occur in high tracks than low tracks (Oakes 1985, Gamoran and Nystrand 1990). In contrast, low-track instruction tends to be fragmented, emphasizing worksheets and recitation (Page 1992). Teachers in low-track classes spend more time on behavior management and less time on instruction (Oakes 1985).

Unequal behavior and attitudes among students. These differences cannot be ascribed solely to teachers, however, because students' responses to instruction also differ across tracks and ability groups. Low-track students are off-task more often, spend less time on homework, and turn in fewer assignments (Oakes 1985, Gamoran and Nystrand 1990). Current data do not indicate whether low-track students respond less well because instruction is less engaging or whether instruction is less engaging because students are not responsive. Both processes are probably at work. Case study writers have long contended that tracking polarizes the student body into "pro-school" and "anti-school" groups (for example, Lacey 1970, Abraham 1989). The latest survey research supports this claim: Berends (1991) found that college- and noncollege-track students differ more over time in the extent of disciplinary problems, in engagement with schoolwork, and in expectations for future schooling.

What Can Be Done?

Although the research is not definitive, it does suggest two actions: reduce the use of tracking and grouping and improve the way ability grouping is used where it is retained.

Reduce the use of tracking and grouping. Generally, the more rigid the tracking system, the more research studies have found no benefits to overall school achievement and serious detriments to equity. Students who report being assigned to different tracks in high school become more unequal in their achievement over time, and the increase in inequality is greatest in schools where students rarely change tracks (Gamoran 1992). In elementary schools, between-class grouping for the entire school day is least likely to show any benefits (Slavin 1987). As Slavin (1987) explains, rigid tracking systems are likely to fail because when a single division by ability is made for all subjects, classes remain heterogeneous on most skills, so there is no improvement in the fit between students' needs and the provision of instruction. In addition, rigid tracking systems may be more likely to induce polarized attitudes toward schooling (Gamoran 1992). In moving to reduce the use of grouping, then, the first step should be to eliminate the most rigid forms of tracking, such as broad, inflexible program assignment in high schools and between-class tracking for the whole day in elementary schools.

Efforts to reduce tracking must grapple with the fact that in at least some cases, high-track students perform better than similar students in heterogeneous classes. The elimination of grouping must be accompanied by staff development opportunities for teachers to learn strategies for enhancing the learning of all students in classes that are more diverse than those to which they are accustomed. At the same time, those who strive to maintain ability grouping out of concern for high-track students must come to grips with the growth in inequality that occurs in many cases.

Improve the use of ability grouping. To the extent that grouping is not completely eliminated, it must be implemented more effectively than is typical. First, it is essential to avoid locking in teachers and students to their track assignments. Permanent assignments result in a vicious cycle, in which the expectations of teachers and students enter a downward spiral (Page 1992). Schools must make at least two sorts of investments to bring greater flexibility to their grouping systems: (1) they must reassess students' capabilities and take new information into account when making assignment decisions, and (2) they must enable students to make up curricular material they may have missed-for example, in tutorials during the school year or the summer-so that those who are ready to advance are not held back by lack of curriculum coverage. The latter requires investment not just by schools, but by students as well, who must undertake extra work to catch up. Implementing more flexible grouping systems also means rotating teachers so that all students have opportunities to learn from the most effective teachers and to prevent the loss of morale that sometimes occurs for teachers who are assigned to low tracks year after year.

Second, those who use ability grouping must improve instruction in low groups. This could, at the same time, reduce the inequality that often results from grouping and raise the overall level of achievement in the school. This recommendation is extremely difficult to follow-indeed, were it not so difficult, ability grouping would be a lot less controversial! It is difficult because (1) by virtue of their assignment, teachers and students in low tracks have low expectations for academic work; and (2) low-track students often resist challenging academic work. One observer found that low-track students preferred worksheets to discussion, because the seatwork kept private what students did and did not know (Metz 1978).

Is it even possible? Can high-quality instruction ever take place in low-status groups? We have many more examples of unsuccessful low-track classes than successful ones, but there are some circumstances under which low-group students receive effective instruction. At the elementary level, grouping systems that divide students on the basis of skills closely related to the curriculum and those that adjust curriculum and instruction to address students' needs are more likely to be effective. This conclusion is based on studies of within-class grouping for math and cross-grade, subject-specific grouping for reading (Slavin 1987), but the conclusion is probably generally valid.

At the secondary level, a few case studies suggest that low-track classes may serve their remedial purpose-that is, they allow students to catch up, or at least prevent them from falling further behind-under the following conditions:

Teachers hold high expectations, manifested by their emphasis on academic work.

Teachers exert extra effort, compared to their efforts in other classes.

Teachers and students have opportunities for extensive oral interaction.

There is no procedure in place that assigns weak or less experienced teachers to the lower track (Page and Valli 1990, Gamoran 1991).

These case studies rely on private schools mostly with middle-class students, and we have as yet no evidence that they generalize well to other situations.

One 9th grade English teacher I observed, whose low-group students kept pace with their peers in other classes, told her students: "I know it's not easy, you guys-I know it's not easy-but we're not going to read Weekly Reader in this class. All right? You deserve to have this information, so stick with it." With such a persistent teacher, and equally persistent students, low-track classes may be effective, but the phenomenon is too rare for one to have confidence that it will become the general case anytime soon. All the more reason to curtail tracking and grouping where possible.

Ability grouping rarely benefits overall achievement, but it can contribute to inequality of achievement, as students in high groups gain and low-group students fall farther behind. The more rigid the tracking system, the more likely these patterns are to emerge.

When students are grouped according to skills that are closely related to the curriculum, and when curriculum and instruction are tailored to students' capacities, ability grouping may raise achievement. Research at the elementary level supports this claim more so than at the secondary level, where there are few examples of effective instruction in low-ability classes.

The use of ability grouping should be curtailed, starting with its most rigid forms: permanent program assignments in high schools and between-class grouping for the whole school day in elementary schools.

Where grouping is not eliminated, its implementation must be improved: neither teachers nor students should be locked into their assignments, and the quality of instruction in low groups must be raised.

References

Abraham, J. (1989). "Testing Hargreaves' and Lacey's Differentiation-Polarization Theory in a Setted Comprehensive." British Journal of Sociology 40: 46-81.

Allington, R. L. (1980). "Teacher Interruption Behaviors During Primary-Grade Oral Reading." Journal of Educational Psychology 72: 371-374.

Barr, R., and R. Dreeben. (1983). How Schools Work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Berends, M. (1991). High School Tracking and Students' School Orientations. Madison, Wis.: National Center on Effective Secondary Schools.

Coley, R. J., R. Ekstrom, J. Gant, A. M. Villegas, R. Mitchell, and S. M. Watts. (1992). On the Right Track. Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service.

Cornell, E. L. (1936). "Effects of Ability Grouping Determinable from Published Studies." In The Grouping of Pupils. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, vol. 35, part I, edited by G. M. Whipple. Bloomington, Ill.: Public School Publishing Co.

Eder, D. (1981). "Ability Grouping as a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy: A Microanalysis of Teacher-Student Interaction." Sociology of Education 54: 151-161.

Finley, M. K. (1984). "Teachers and Tracking in a Comprehensive High School." Sociology of Education 57: 233-243.

Fogelman, K. (1983). "Ability Grouping in the Secondary School." In Growing Up in Great Britain: Papers from the National Child Development Study, edited by K. Fogelman. London: Macmillan.

Gamoran, A. (1986). "Instructional and Institutional Effects of Ability Grouping." Sociology of Education 59: 185-198.

Gamoran, A. (1987). "The Stratification of High School Learning Opportunities." Sociology of Education 60: 135-155.

Gamoran, A. (1991). Alternative Uses of Ability Grouping: Can We Bring High-Quality Instruction to Low-Ability Classes? Madison, Wis.: Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools.

Gamoran, A. (1992). The Variable Effects of High School Tracking. Madison, Wis.: Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools.

Gamoran, A., and M. Nystrand. (1990). "Tracking, Instruction, and Achievement." Paper presented at the World Congress of Sociology, Madrid.

Hallinan, M. T., and A. B. Sorensen. (1983). "The Formation and Stability of Instructional Groups." American Sociological Review 48: 838-851.

Kerckhoff, A. C. (1986). "Effects of Ability Grouping in British Secondary Schools." American Sociological Review 51: 842-858.

Lacey, C. (1970). Hightown Grammar. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Metz, M. H. (1978). Classrooms and Corridors: The Crisis of Authority in Desegregated Secondary Schools. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

Oakes, J. (1991). Multiplying Inequalities: The Effects of Race, Social Class, and Tracking on Opportunities to Learn Mathematics and Science. Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND.

Oakes, J., A. Gamoran, and R. N. Page. (1992). "Curriculum Differentiation: Opportunities, Outcomes, and Meanings." In Handbook of Research on Curriculum, edited by P. W. Jackson. Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association.

Page, R. N. (1992). Lower Track Classrooms: A Curricular and Cultural Perspective. New York: Teachers College Press.

Page, R. N., and L. Valli, editors. (1990). Curriculum Differentiation: Interpretive Studies in U.S. Secondary Schools. Albany, N.Y.: SUNY Press.

Rosenbaum, J. E. (1976). Making Inequality: The Hidden Curriculum of High School Tracking. New York: Wiley.

Rowan, B., and A. W. Miracle, Jr. (1983). "Systems of Ability Grouping and the Stratification of Achievement in Elementary Schools." Sociology of Education 56: 133-144.

Slavin, R. E. (1987). "Ability Grouping and Achievement in Elementary Schools: A Best-Evidence Synthesis." Review of Educational Research 57: 293-336.

Slavin, R. E. (1990). "Achievement Effects of Ability Grouping in Secondary Schools: A Best-Evidence Synthesis." Review of Educational Research 60: 471-499.

Weinstein, R. S. (1976). "Reading Group Membership in First Grade: Teacher Behavior and Student Experiences Over Time." Journal of Educational Psychology 68: 103-116.

Endnotes

The British study is remarkable in its comprehensiveness: it began with nearly every child born in England, Scotland, and Wales during the first week of March 1958 and followed them from birth to age 23. The ability-grouping analyses covered the period from age 11 to 16. The study is also especially valuable because it includes a large number of comparable schools that used and did not use tracking, or "streaming" as it is called in Britain. In the United States, it is impossible to find a representative sample of secondary schools in which students are not grouped in math and English.

These differential gains occurred for students who were statistically equated in prior achievement and background characteristics. In general, students in the different tracks are far from equal in these areas, so the gross differences between tracks were much larger.

Slavin has stated: "For ability grouping to be effective at the elementary level, it must create true homogeneity on the specific skill being taught, and instruction must be closely tailored to students' levels of performance" (1987, p. 323). For the secondary level, he remarked: "The lesson to be drawn from research on ability grouping may be that unless teaching methods are systematically changed, school organization has little impact on student achievement" (1990, p. 491). Compare these to what Ethel L. Cornell concluded in 1936: "The results of ability grouping seem to depend less upon the fact of grouping itself than upon . . . the differentiations in [curricular] content, method, and speed, and the technique of the teacher" (p. 304).

Author's note: This paper was written at the Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools, Wisconsin Center for Education Research, University of Wisconsin-Madison, which is supported by a grant from the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (Grant No. OERI-R117-Q00005). Any opinions, findings, or conclusions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of these agencies or the U.S. Department of Education.

Adam Gamoran is Professor of Sociology and Educational Policy Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools, 1025 W. Johnson St., Madison, WI 53706.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Synthesis of Research / Is Ability Grouping Equitable?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
October 1992 | Volume 50 | Number 2 Untracking for Equity Pages 11-17 Adam Gamoran Drawing on the best research we have on grouping, I want to describe conditions that make one system or the other more likely to result in high achievement that is equitably distributed.