Teacher Tea
Is Ability Grouping a Myth? Challenging the Assumptions of Tracking
Ability-based grouping has significant implications for student outcomes. While grouping might help advanced students excel, it can inadvertently lower expectations for those placed in lower tracks, affecting their confidence and long-term achievement. Some research has shown that such grouping reinforces existing disparities, particularly for students from underrepresented or disadvantaged backgrounds. If teachers are aware of these possible implications, they can also be more proactive in encouraging healthier attitudes and mindsets at different levels.
So are there benefits to heterogeneous grouping? And how does it compare to tracking?
In EdSurge, reporter Daniel Mollenkamp examines the San Francisco Unified School District's (SFUSD) controversial attempt to "detrack" math education by moving Algebra I from eighth to ninth grade in, “Revisiting the Legacy of San Francisco’s Detracking Experiment.” The 2014 policy aimed to eliminate ability-based grouping in math; critics of ability-based grouping argued that it perpetuates racial and socioeconomic inequalities. Such advocates of detracking claimed that doing so would remove harmful hierarchies and ultimately broaden access to higher-level math courses. But the move faced backlash from members of the community who were concerned about college readiness, and who argued that it would widen achievement gaps and create new inequities, such as private schools offering more advanced math opportunities overall.
While data from the experiment showed mixed results, detracking proponents pointed to increases in students taking math beyond Algebra II, and argued that the policy did not harm AP Calculus enrollment. Critics countered that the policy misrepresented research and failed to address underlying systemic inequities, such as disparities in resources and teacher support. Ultimately, SFUSD ended the detracking initiative in 2023, reinstating eighth-grade Algebra I. Mollenkamp also discusses the broader debates on equity and systemic reform, along with the importance of identifying root causes of disparities in order to achieve lasting change in education.