Ability Grouping: Students Swept Downstream

Check out my snazzy floooooow chart -WK

The issue of ability streaming is both complex and contentious. In order to determine whether it is beneficial or harmful, it must be asked - for whom? This paper will begin with a brief overview of the issue, followed by an examination of the evidence that ability streaming is detrimental to some of the most vulnerable students. It will then discuss the benefits of streaming to those gifted students who are chosen to enter advanced streams. Subsequently it will be shown that streaming is not good for society as a whole, vis-a-vis the reproduction of social inequalities. Finally, the paper will recommend a policy course for the future of academic differentiation. While ability grouping has only narrow benefit at present, it has the potential to encourage students' and change their lives.

[more after the jump - click here]

Ability Grouping

Ability grouping, or streaming, is common in almost all modern school systems (Terwel 2005), and in an increasingly competitive globalizing world, it represents a potential tool for “raising student attainment” (Ireson, Hallman, and Hurley 2005:443). Streaming can be seen to exist along a continuum, with some schools offering, in addition to general instruction, either advanced tracks for the most gifted students, or remedial streams for low-achieving students. More fully streamed schools may offer both differentiations (Gamoran 1989), or more. In addition, different schools with similar streaming styles may differ in the socioeconomic makeup of students, the allocation of resources by the schools to the various streams, and the attitudes and pedagogy of individual teachers toward students in different streams. All of these factors can impact students' attitudes and achievements (which reinforce each other), making the effects of ability streaming difficult to isolate. However, researchers tend to agree that the impact of ability grouping depends greatly on the group into which students are streamed.

Impacts of Streaming by Low Ability

There is evidence that ability grouping can be harmful for low-achieving students (Terwel 2005), representing a major criticism of ability grouping. There are many contributing factors to this effect (illustrated in Figure 1). Teachers of lower-streamed classes often lower their expectations of students, demanding less critical thinking and independent work, and instead stressing rote memorization and rule following (Stevens and Vermeersch 2010). Students in remedial streams also lack positive peer role models and face more interruptions from fellow classmates (Slavin 1990). Partly due to this, teachers of remedial streams spend more time on class discipline and less on instruction (Terwel 2005). Furthermore, the most qualified teachers migrate toward higher streams (ibid.), leaving behind those that are weak, inexperienced, or burned out.

These least desirable teachers, in charge of the most vulnerable students, often take a negative attitude toward those they are meant to be instructing. They may view students in their streams as unteachable, uninterested, and so cater their lessons accordingly - by reducing academic requirements. In addition to teachers' attitudes, low-achieving students' views are also negative, as they often adopt an anti-school attitude and have a less positive academic self-concept (ASC) (Gamoran 1989). In turn this may lead to lower aspirations and academic attainment. This helps explain why students from lower streams are less likely to plan to attend post-secondary schools than higher stream students with similar ability (ibid.). These outcomes of ability grouping have led to a de-tracking movement in many school systems (Rubin 2006). It is clear that ability differentiation as currently widely practiced produces negative outcomes for those students in low-ability streams.

Impacts of Streaming by High Ability

The main benefits of ability grouping are for academically gifted students in the highest streams (see Figure 1). One of the main reasons cited for placing high achieving students into a gifted stream is to prevent boredom (Preckel, Götz, and Frenzel 2010). Student boredom has been positively correlated with negative outcomes ranging from nicotine and alcohol consumption to juvenile delinquency and higher drop out rates (ibid.), and there is some evidence that academically gifted students in a comprehensive curriculum experience more boredom due to a lack of challenge (Preckel et al. 2010). Higher streams benefit from instruction by top quality teachers, who place greater emphasis on critical thinking and creative problem solving, and use more engaging material. These students also benefit academically from having a positive peer group.

Besides strictly academic outcomes, being placed in a gifted stream can have psychosocial impacts. While these can be positive, including improved social relationships, gifted streams can also undermine the academic self-concept of high ability students who find themselves in contrast with other high ability peers (Peckel et al. 2010). This is explained by the Big Fish Little Pond Effect (BFLPE), which posits that academic self-perception is based on a student's frame of reference, so that being in a setting where peers ability is high leads to lower ASCs, while a setting with low average ability level allows high ASCs (Marsh et al. 2008). However, the negative effects of the BFLPE are short-lived, reversing themselves within months. Overall, the effects of ability grouping on students selected for advanced streams is positive both socially and academically.

Impacts of Streaming on Society

Another criticism of ability streaming is that it reproduces social inequalities. There is a positive correlation between higher family social class and entrance into advanced streams (Stevens and Vermeersch 2010), meaning children from lower socioeconomic status (SES) families are more likely to enter lower ability streams. Once in lower streams, it is often difficult for students to switch to a higher stream at a later date (Terwel 2005). This negative outcome is heightened by the fact that low achieving students appear to be more reliant on the quality of their learning environment, because they have access to fewer resources (such as parental emphasis on learning and access to cultural capital) outside the classroom (ibid.). Additionally, minority students are over-represented in lower streams and schools, a form of 'second-generation segregation' (Gamoran 1993). It is clear that students' separation among higher and lower streams mirrors wider social stratification (Gamoran 1989), and in fact ability grouping can be seen as “a major factor in the development of elite and under-class groups in society” (Slavin 1990:473). Based on these findings, ability grouping has a negative effect on society by reproducing social inequality and reducing students' potential for mobility.

The Future of Streaming

It is clear that ability grouping in schools is a multifaceted issue. While helpful to some, especially those students placed in advanced streams, streaming is an improperly implemented tool that perpetuates social inequality. Based on this, what should future educational policy seek to achieve with regard to streaming? With regard to more advanced students, streaming should continue to be used to help maximize the potential - and reduce the boredom - of the best and brightest. More emphasis, however, should be placed on ameliorating the negative effects of the BFLPE. As for students grouped into lower streams, this is a policy that is generally harmful as currently practiced. However, there remains hope that lower streams could positively impact students, as evidence exists that effective low-stream courses do exist. They are able to combat the dire outcomes of most low-stream offerings by maintaining teachers' high expectations and academic curriculum, an emphasis on oral discourse, and a practice of preventing low streams from becoming a catch-basin for less qualified teachers (Gamoran 1993). It is by emulating similar best-practices that the benefits of ability streaming can become more universal, by challenging all children to succeed. If remedial streams can succeed in improving the life chances of all levels of students, their aspirations and achievements will soar. It is at that point that ability grouping will be of true benefit.

References

Gamoran, Adam. 1989. “Measuring Curriculum Differentiation.” American Journal of Education 97(2):129-43.

------. 1993. “Alternative Uses of Ability Grouping in Secondary Schools: Can We Bring High-Quality Instruction to Low-Ability Classes?” American Journal of Education 102(1):1-22.

Ireson, Judith, Susan Hallam, and Clare Hurley. 2005. “What are the Effects of Ability Grouping on GCSE Attainment?” British Educational Research Journal 31(4):443-58.

Marsh, Herbert W., Marjorie Seaton, Ulrich Trautwein, Oliver Lüdtke, K. T. Hau, Alison J. O'Mara, and Rhonda G. Craven. 2008. “The Big-fish-little-pond-effect Stands Up to Critical Scrutiny: Implications for Theory, Methodology, and Future Research.” Educational Psychology Review 20(3):319-50.

Preckel, Franzis, Thomas Götz, and Anne Frenzel. 2010. “Ability Grouping of Gifted Students: Effects on Academic Self-Concept and Boredom.” British Journal of Educational Psychology 80(3): 451-72.

Rubin, Beth C. 2006. “Tracking and Detracking: Debates, Evidence, and Best Practices for a Heterogeneous World.” Theory Into Practice 45(1):4-14.

Slavin, Robert E. 1990. “Achievement Effects of Ability Grouping in Secondary Schools: A Best- Evidence Synthesis.” Review of Educational Research 60(3):471-99.

Stevens, Peter A. and Hans Vermeersch. 2010. “Streaming in Flemish Secondary Schools: Exploring Teachers' Perceptions of and Adaptations to Students in Different Streams.” Oxford Review of Education 36(3):267-84.

Terwel, Jan. 2005. “Curriculum Differentiation: Multiple Perspectives and Developments in Education.” Journal of Curriculum Studies 37(6):653-70.