## Key Ideas > [!abstract] Core Concepts > > - **Two main approaches**: Setting groups students by subject, streaming by overall ability across subjects > - **Research shows mixed results**: No clear consensus on effectiveness; small advantages for higher groups, disadvantages for lower groups > - **Implementation quality determines outcomes**: Success depends on maintaining rigorous expectations and intensive support for lower-attaining students ## Definition **Ability Grouping** is placing students into different classes or groups according to their academic performance, either by specific subjects (setting) or overall ability (streaming/tracking). Schools group students by ability for practical reasons. Teachers can tailor instruction to a narrower range of student needs and teach content at an appropriate pace. Higher-achieving students can learn advanced content at a faster pace, whilst lower-achieving students get more foundational support. These arrangements also allow more effective deployment of specialist support teachers. ## Connected To [[Differentiation]] | [[Neuromyths]] | [[Prior Knowledge]] | [[What Research Can You Trust]] --- ## Setting vs Streaming Two distinct approaches to ability grouping exist. **Setting** groups students by subject: a student might be in the top mathematics set but a lower English set. This approach addresses subject-specific strengths and weaknesses. **Streaming** groups students across all subjects based on overall ability, using a single grouping for every class. Streaming simplifies organisation but ignores the fact that students often have uneven ability profiles across subjects. Setting better addresses individual learning profiles. Streaming is administratively simpler but may misplace students in subjects where they have different ability levels from their overall profile. ## A Critical Misconception A common error in practice is the belief that lower-attaining students need _easier_ material. Students with knowledge gaps require _more_ intensive instruction and practice, not less. Lower-attaining groups need extra time and effort to catch up, which demands rigorous content delivered with careful scaffolding, not simplified or entertaining activities. This misconception often leads to what might be called an "activity trap." Students in lower sets receive tasks like cutting and sticking, often justified through the [[Neuromyths|myth]] of learning styles ("they're hands-on learners"). These low-demand activities prevent students from engaging with the academic content they need to progress. When behavioural issues concentrate in lower groups, teachers may assign enjoyable activities to manage behaviour rather than challenging academic work. This compounds the problem. ## Research Evidence and Limitations Research on ability grouping produces mixed results. Meta-analyses show no overall effect, with slight advantages for higher-ability classes and small disadvantages for lower-ability classes (Slavin, 1987; Kulik & Kulik, 1992). However, studies often conflate setting with streaming, making interpretation difficult. Success appears to depend heavily on implementation variables: teacher expectations, the quality and intensity of support provided to lower-attaining groups, mobility between groups based on progress, and curriculum rigour across all groups. The research suggests that ability grouping itself is neither inherently beneficial nor harmful. The mechanism of grouping matters less than what happens within those groups. A school with high expectations, rigorous teaching, and intensive support for lower groups may see positive outcomes; a school that accepts lower expectations for lower groups will see the gaps widen. ## Potential Negative Effects Placement in lower groups can affect student self-esteem and motivation. Some students develop negative learning attitudes, viewing their group placement as a fixed judgement of their ability. Others respond to lower-group placement with motivation to improve and move up. Group placement can also concentrate behavioural difficulties in lower sets, creating additional challenges for teaching and learning. These effects are not inevitable consequences of grouping; they result from how groups are managed and what messages schools communicate about group membership. ## Making Ability Grouping Work Effective use of ability grouping depends on maintaining high expectations across all groups. Every group should receive challenging, academic content appropriate to their current level. Lower groups need more intensive courses with greater time and resources, not easier material. Groupings should remain flexible, with regular assessment to identify students who should move between groups. Teachers must reject learning style myths when planning differentiated activities. Different groups should be studying the same academic content at different depths or paces, not entirely different types of activity. Quality teaching matters in every group. A rigorous curriculum applied consistently, combined with monitoring to ensure all groups receive appropriately challenging material, provides the foundation for ability grouping to be effective. ## References Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C.-L. C. (1992). Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs. *Gifted Child Quarterly*, 36(2), 73-77. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629203600204 Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. *Psychological Science in the Public Interest*, 9(3), 105-119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x Slavin, R. E. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. *Review of Educational Research*, 57(3), 293-336. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543057003293 Slavin, R. E. (1990). Achievement effects of ability grouping in secondary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. *Review of Educational Research*, 60(3), 471-499. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543060003471 ---