Think back to your experience in grade school, from kindergarten through high school graduation. What was your experience like? For majority of students today, their experiences and memories were most often associated with splitting their grade into groups and going to different classes. Teachers and faculty believed it was beneficial to divide friends and acquaintances. This practice that seemed so irrelevant and harmless at the time is referred to as ability grouping. Ability grouping is defined as "the practice of dividing classes into small instructional groups," also referred to as "tracking" (NEA) and, in fact is very harmful. An abundance of studies have proven that ability grouping does not increase overall achievement in all students and is not mutually beneficial for low and high level ability learners. Ability grouping is a hotly debated topic surrounding today's education system in correlation with the recent emphasis on research surrounding the practices and consequences and increase in occurrence in schools across the nation. Considering that primary and secondary schools provide students with vital skills and knowledge that shape the people they become after graduating, a reliable and dependable system for promoting learning is necessary. Ability grouping is not reliable, dependable or any variation of those words. Ability grouping is ineffective in promoting higher achievement, creates a divide between different ability level students, and uses an unreliable as well as an inconsistent strategy for creating groups because of personal bias. 

Ability grouping was a popular practice prior to the 1960s and fell out of favor during the mid twentieth century. Jonathan Kozol was a critic that was concerned with racial inequality and challenged ability grouping during the 1960s attempting to eliminate inequality and unfair treatment in schools (Garelick). In 1961, eighty percent of elementary schools grouped students and this statistic remained constant, producing results of eighty percent in a study during the 1980s. Studies preformed throughout the 1970s and 1980s criticized ability grouping because it would "inevitably separate students by characteristics that are correlated statistically with measures of ability, including race, ethnicity, native language, and class" (Loveless). In reaction to these critiques, the "Back to Basics" movement began in the 1980s, reinstituting traditional curriculum and bringing back some of the previous standards associated with ability grouping practices (Garelick). Following these movements, "in the 1990s the National Governors Association, The American Civil Liberties Union, The Children's Defense Fund, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and other prominent political organizations passed resolutions condemning tracking" (Loveless). It has become increasingly common knowledge that ability grouping fosters inequality and a distinction or divides between students starting at an early age. Since the late 1900s, ability grouping in math and literature has increased an average of nearly twenty-five percent in grades one through six. This should be concerning to students and parents because there is no concrete evidence behind the claims that endorse ability grouping, they are strictly assumption and opinion. Children and young adults are extremely vulnerable which makes the process of labeling them especially more concerning because this practice is most commonly implemented in the first grade and the placement of a student is in the hands of, usually, one teacher. 

Consistency and reliability are two necessities that can not be sacrificed by the American education system. Without these two characteristics, the school system would fall to chaos and failure. This is why the lack of teachers possessing a reliable and consistent way to group students is a huge issue when it comes to ability grouping. Bernhardt, the chair of the Department of Secondary Education Technology at the Metropolitan State University of Denver, addresses the issues regarding a single teacher evaluating students, which include personal bias, ethnicity and social class. Meritocratic and non- meritocratic criteria are used to describe the way teachers evaluate students. "Meritocratic criteria is defined as "rigid and objective determinants of ability and intelligence" (Bernhardt). These include standardized test scores, grades, and prior course placement. Meritocratic criteria nearly if not completely eliminates teacher bias and errors in judgment.  On the other hand, "non- meritocratic criteria tend to embody demographic characteristics such as race, ethnicity, and social class and such other factors as student choice, parental preference, and teacher recommendations" (Bernhardt). This method is completely biased and untrustworthy, especially when considering teacher recommendations. Teacher recommendations reflect a student's academic potential, behavior, motivation, personal interests, attitude and family background as viewed by the teacher. These issues are the reasons for prominent political organizations taking a stand against tracking, also known as tracking, as mentioned previously. Teacher bias can not and should not be a factor when determining the academic success and potential of a student. Determining factors should be strictly meritocratic, which seems nearly impossible in today's society. The meritocratic method is also difficult to implement and analyze in primary schools. Majority ability groups are determined by teachers, not tests, and as humans, it is impossible for teachers to remain unbiased, therefore this system of ability grouping should not be implemented in schools if it can not remain completely meritocratic. 

"Kelly noted that, although criteria for placing students into honors classes may appear meritocratic, placement was actually highly subjective because teachers were not provided with strategies to objectively measure academic motivation, independent thinking, oral communication skills, and composition" (Bernhardt). 

Studies have found that majority teachers use a combination of meritocratic and non meritocratic methods when determining a student's appropriate ability group. 

Not only is the process for determining ability groups unreliable, but it does not produce any higher achievement levels than heterogeneous ability level, or regular, classroom settings. Nearly all studies endorse the idea that on average ability grouping has a negative affect on low level learners and high level learns show no improvement when compared to heterogeneous ability groups (Dongsheng, Taylor, Slavin, Gamoran, Tieso). This begs the question: why would schools across the nation operate using ability grouping? Not much attention has been allotted to ability grouping in regards to achievement because almost all American secondary schools use some degree of it. Critiquing a nation-wide practice could cause large-scale problems. The United States is not the only country dealing with the issue of the ineffectiveness and negative side effects of ability grouping. China has had a problem with wide spread implementation of severe ability grouping. China preformed studies revealing that gender did not have an effect on a students' ability level, but rather the quality of the schools and teachers (Dongsheng). Gamoran, the director of the Wisconsin Center for Education Research and Professor of Sociology and Education Policy Students, explains that the environments of the different learning level groups differ, which could add to or be the reason for the negative effects on low level learners and the consistency of high level learners. Low level groups offer "less conductive learning environments, with more interruptions than middle and high level groups," while high level groups have teachers that are "more enthusiastic and spend more time preparing" (Gamoran). Lower level students experience a "lower quality of instruction, emphasis on recitation, more time on behavior management and less content covered in the curriculum" when compared to high level students who are more likely to experience "problem solving and critical thinking curriculum" (Slavin and Gamoran). On the other hand, teachers and curriculum might not be the cause of the negative effects of ability grouping. The act of labeling a student high or low learning or ability levels could be the issue. The label of a student being high or low learners has the potential to limit learning capacity (Taylor). As a Director of Science and Mathematics at Angelina Junior College, Schrank uses an experiment to illustrate the labeling effect. One hundred enlisted airmen were grouped into five groups randomly. Each group was then assigned an ability level label at random. Each group was exposed to different teachers and standardized material, allowing for the same instruction. Proving the labeling effect, and taking into account that the groups were completely randomized, higher labeled groups achieved higher performance grades than lower level groups. "A person described as being of "low ability" now, in the present, is assumed to have more limited learning potential than those who may be judged to be 'more able" (Taylor). Taylor elaborates, saying "this means that future outcomes are deemed fixed, predictable and inevitably based on the present." This attitude is commonly adopted by students, believing they can not grow out of the group they are placed in. With this attitude, students may see little point in making an effort to work hard and apply themselves to improve, therefore limiting their learning. This is clearly the opposite of what our education system is striving to accomplish, making it the enemy of school systems. 

Ability grouping opposes, not only the school system, but the law by promoting inequality within the classroom.  Gamoran expresses that "low- group losses offset high- group gains, the effects on productivity were about zero, but the impact on inequality was substantial." In the experiment conducted by Schrank, time showed that the longer the men were divided into their groups, there was less communication between men of different groups. Although this model is of older men, it reflects the outcome of younger students as well. This experiment was a prime example of how ability grouping can ruin the fostering of communication and friendship in primary and secondary education, which are, again, two vital characteristics of the American school system. The time separated into learning groups and the notion that one group of students is smarter, faster or overall better than another is the main cause for this lack of communication and friendship. The lack of time spent with multiple ability levels can produce negative effects on behavioral and social actions of students in middle and high school. The lack of time spent developing adoptability skills learned in a heterogeneous classroom, can prove to be extremely detrimental to a student later in life when faced with tasks or jobs that are not similar to the specific way their ability grouped learned or operated.  In young students, the division of groups can cause them to acquire the feeling of segregation and in some cases can cause arguments between students. The feeling of segregation is correlated back to the issue of inequality regarding ability grouping. Amongst various issues of ability grouping, the division of students can be the most detrimental to a students' mind set and development of vital skills. 

However, the argument in favor of ability grouping is persuasive. "Individualized instruction" is an aspect of ability grouping that has convinced a vast amount of parents and students that this process is beneficial. The logic behind implementing individualized instruction is strong and true, when implemented correctly. "Students have significantly different work habits, paces of learning, and outside of school experiences and that is why curriculum and teaching must be personalized to them" (Strauss). Being able to mold teaching and instruction around a students' needs and style of learning will increase their achievement and knowledge. The process of molding teaching and instruction has proved beneficial for higher level learners, but did not produce the same effect when introduced to lower level learners. However, how can the education system stop a process that has proven valuable and helpful to a group of students? Strauss attacks the idea of eliminating ability grouping in schools by saying "we should not forgo an educational practice that is effective for one group of students while we struggle to identify distinctive strategies to meet the needs of the other groups of students." Strauss also paints a picture of high ability learners being victimized if ability grouping is stopped. "The victim is the loss of potential among our high ability students" Strauss explains. This is true, especially regarding heterogeneous classrooms. High ability level students must wait for low ability students to catch up or the course material could be too easy for them and does not challenge them, which does not encourage improvement of achievement. "The message sent to high-achieving students is that they should hit the pause button on their learning until other students catch up" (Strauss). The idea of waiting for students to catch up was also encouraged by the "No Child Left Behind" legislation introduced in 2002. Assuming that ability grouping is implemented completely correct could, hypothetically, produce all around higher achievement, however altercations must be made to the current practice of ability grouping to perfect its implementation. 

Many researchers believe that moderate gains in achievement are possible when implementing a variety of learning strategies including ability grouping. "Teachers using ability grouping, curriculum modifications, differentiation, strategies to enhance higher level thinking skills, concept based instruction, problem based learning ...  one strategy is not effective acting alone" (Tieso). Ability grouping should not be the main or central practice operating in the school system today. Very little ability grouping can prove beneficial for both low and high level leaners when paired or partnered with other strategies. Also, Tieso suggests that the future of ability grouping will be flexible and less "fixed." For example, ability groups will not be permanent and students will be rotated and constantly monitored to allow for movement between groups and levels. To correct the problems arising by ability grouping, researchers have proposed that teachers focus on curriculum as opposed to actually grouping. Teachers must increase the quality of their instruction to improve overall achievement, not separate students. Multiple levels of abilities functioning in a classroom helps students develop social and behavioral skills along with providing a sound education. After addressing the positives and negatives, Tieso explains, the school systems in America should implement a system of integrating a variety of strategies, with little focus on ability grouping, in the classroom to improve overall achievement levels of all students. 

The underlying goal of the education system is to produce strong students that possess the essential knowledge to be successful in life. Schools should also encourage development of various skills that prove vital once entering a career or job such as communication and proper behavior. Primary and secondary schools encompass thirteen years of a students' life. These thirteen years of school should not produce negative effects on students and discourage them.  They should produce strong, knowledgeable and confident students that are prepared to take on a career or further education. Ability grouping will not produce students that parents, employers and society desire. In any situation, including school systems, if a system or practice is ineffective or unsuccessful, it is removed or stopped. Not only is ability grouping unsuccessful and ineffective, it generates a negative effect on participants. Ability grouping did not encourage improvement in high ability learners and decreased the amount of achievement of low ability leaners when compared to heterogeneous classroom students. Without accomplishing the main purpose of the school system, to foster achievement, ability grouping is a prime candidate to be removed from practice. Ability grouping also fosters inequality and division between students of different ability level groups. Inequality is against the law, so why would it be encouraged in schools? This is just another reason implementing ability grouping is a mistake. These two outcomes illustrate that ability grouping is the enemy of todays education system. Making the situation worse, grouping students by ability is typically undependable. Essentially, teachers group students in an inconsistent and unreliable way then students emerge with the same or less achievements, feelings of isolation and division between one another. Parents and students rely on the education system to improve their knowledge and varieties of skills to make them successful throughout life. Ability grouping will not produce students and young adults that accomplish these goals. 

