Essay: Detriment of same ability grouping in schools

Same ability grouping is the strategy of placing students into groups based on their academic ability (Kulik, 1992). It is still a widely used strategy in the educational setting, especially in primary schools. Most of the research on ability grouping has reported that it does not benefit the overall achievement of students (Agrawal et al., 2014) and it has many adverse effects on the student’s well-being (Vogl & Preckel, 2014). The main group affected by this practice are low ability students. One of its main issues is that is leads to low self-esteem; students who are placed into low ability groups are automatically excluded from the classroom and thus feelings of low self-esteem may develop (Tomlinson, 2014). Low self-esteem is likely to further negatively impact the student’s education. Findings from PISA survey (OECD, 2009) reported that ability grouping is related to lower performance at the system level. This therefore further supports that argument that same-ability grouping has negative effects on education (Parsons, 2016). In addition, Ireson et al., (2005) examined the effects of same ability grouping is math, English and science, and reported no significant positive effect.
placing students into same ability groups can lead to stigma. This is likely to be carried outside of the educational settings and into everyday life (social, relationship). Dividing students based on their ability indicates that one group is different from the other. Children may interpret this strategy in the wrong way and assume that the high achievers are superior to them. Which could lead to feelings of low self-worth (Francis et al, 2017). This could further cause them to become withdrawn. One of the main signs of depression is withdrawal (Klasen et al., 2015).and findings suggest that low-ability students are less likely to report depressive symptoms (Lipps et al., 2010). Informal labelling is also a consequence of same ability groups. This not only affects the students but also the teacher’s perceptions of the students. Labelling can cause self-fulfilling prophecy because they do not only affect the individual that is labelled, but also people who are working with the ‘labelled’ student, in terms of lowered expectations (Becker,1963) While it seems to benefit high achievers, it negatively impacts low achievers. Moreover, further research has reported that individuals often conform to a stereotype that they experience (Kavish et al., 2016). When a low ability student is labelled as ‘slow’, ‘lazy’ or ‘trouble maker’ it can cause the students in low ability groups to start disturbing the classroom or become demotivated (Kerckhoff & Glennie, 1999).
When a teacher has low expectations of a student, they will less likely receive attention and effort (Eccles et al., 1985). Some argue that low ability students are not stimulated or challenged enough and so they are likely to be stuck at same level with no progression (McGillicuddy & Devine, 2018). In a study, students in low mathematics groups are reported being insufficiently challenged; they were expected to spend their time copying off the board without being challenged or understanding the work (Boaler et al., 2000). Another finding reported was that students in low ability groups have less motivation, as opposed to students in high ability groups (Suknandan & Lee, 1998). This practice also causes division in the classroom which can be explained by the group conflict theory. This theory can be defined as different groups (same-ability groups) of people fighting for limited resources. High and low ability groups are likely to experience conflict as they are both in different groups with different abilities. However they are both fighting for recognition and attention from their teacher. As mentioned above, high ability groups are likely to receive more attention from teachers. This can lead to obdurate feelings of jealousy which is likely to cause conflict and fights (Boaler et al., 2000).
The conflict theory states that schools train individuals who are in working class to accept their position as a lower-class member of society, which is why they get taught lower level curriculum. Moreover, from a functionalist’s perspective, they believe that students are separated based on their ability because society demands for the most capable people to get the most important jobs. High ability students are identified by schools early on and get better education opportunities (Agrawal et al., 2014). Many sociologists referred to this as a social placement, which is placing individuals into lower or higher class based on their education attainment. If ability grouping is practiced this early in education then it will continue to have impact their future studies (Talcott Parsons et al., 2016). Thus, this practice does not promote educational equity because it is separating students based on their abilities thus, it is promoting educational inequity (Talcott Parsons et al., 2016).
Research shows that individuals who have different abilities but are placed in a mixed ability group will achieve higher test scores (Boaler, 2008). This is because both students are being challenged and are therefore learning new things William and Bartholomew (2004) This indicates that same ability-grouping is problematic in the sense that some students have similar academic attainment but are still placed in different ability groups. Previous research has reported that low ability groups do not engage the student’s thinking and is therefore limited to simple practice exercises (Hansell and Karweit 1983). Same-ability grouping is not accurate; in a study it was reported that the test scores of high and low ability students significantly overlapped; however, there is also evidence stating that students from ethnic minorities and low S.E.S are underrepresented in Gifted and Talented programmes in England (REAL 2006). Further, some students are misplaced into low groups. This is a big concern, since several studies have reported that there is relatively little movement between groups due to them being rarely reviewed. Thus low-ability students are likely to stay in low ability groups, regardless of achievement or progression (Dunne et al., 2007).
In the Uk, academic achieve is impacted by class. Students with high socioeconomic states are likely to achieve higher then students in low SES (Clifton & Cook, 2012). These gaps are seen between students as early as three years old, and only continue to widen (Feinstein, 2003). It has also been reported that same-ability grouping only increases the gap between low and high SES students (Higgins et al., 2012). Leading to social segregation (OECD, 2014); thus, students exam results are not the only factor that determines their group placement (high or low), social class and SES are also predictive factors (Muijs & Dunne, 2010). Moreover, allocating students into same ability groups can create and artificial ceiling, where low ability students are excluded from higher study that is available for higher ability students. Higher grade students in low ability groups often express dissatisfaction with their group and the overall school (Ball, 1981).When students are dissatisfied with their school; it is likely to impact their whole school experience (Baines & Blatchford, 2010). Their confidence in their ability can be reduced by being placed in a low ability group. These factors can create self-fulfilling prophecies for the students.
There is considerable research on same ability grouping, it has been studied using quantitative methods and both methodological or theoretical literature reports that same-ability groups are not beneficial for students overall academic attainment and they negatively impact student’s well-being (Agrawal et al., 2014; Vogl & Preckel, 2014; Francis et al, 2017; Lipps et al., 2010). However most previous research used a quantitative approach, which is correlational. Correlational studies only report if there is a relationship, they do not report if there is more than one factor that facilitates this relationship, or which variable causes the other. The aim of this study is to get the students perspectives on same-ability grouping and to investigate same-ability can affect their well-being. Personal thoughts and experiences are made up of the one’s interpretations; they are flexible and constructed (willing, 2008). Thus, it is important to use a qualitative method. This will allow the researcher to collect rich data by understanding the participant’s views and experiences on same ability grouping and how this can affect their self-esteem. The researcher is given the opportunity to interact the participants, this allows for more accurate data collection because follow-up questions can be asked for clarification. In addition, previous research is outdated, therefore it is important to conduct this study as education is fast-growing and it changes dramatically from year to year and new findings may emerge.
2019-2-12-1549986331