Australian schools continue to use ability-based class grouping despite mounting evidence recommending a more flexible approach, a new study shows.
The three-year research project, led by Edith Cowan University’s (ECU) School of Education, examined up to 147 secondary schools that grouped students by ability in Years 7–9. The study was followed by 12 in-depth interviews with school leaders.
The study revealed that Australian secondary schools often rely on multiple factors – not just academic achievement – when grouping Year 7–9 students by ability. Decisions were also influenced by student effort, behaviour, teacher recommendations, friendships and even parent requests.
While ability grouping aims to tailor teaching to student needs, the research highlighted concerns that such practices can unintentionally reinforce social inequities and limit student opportunities.
Lead author Dr Olivia Johnston said the research found four main reasons that class-based ability grouping is often used in Australian secondary schools, despite recommendations for flexible, heterogeneous class groupings.
“Educators’ have perspectives that it makes differentiation easier and helps them manage increasingly difficult jobs,” Dr Johnston told The Educator. “Additionally, there are perceived advantages for students in ‘high’ and ‘low’ ability classes.”
Dr Johnston pointed out that the practice is also culturally acceptable.
“Australia has a long history of the practice and lack of policy direction about its use,” she said, adding that these four reasons are based on misconceptions about the practice, or goals in education that are prioritised over equity.
Ability grouping widens disadvantage gap
Dr Johnston said schools must make more informed decisions about ability grouping.
“There are no frameworks specific to Australia available to guide practice, but I aim to develop some through my research,” she said. “Currently, some guidelines and resources are available from the OECD and other countries like the United Kingdom, Canada, or New Zealand.”
Dr Johnston said informed decisions about class ability grouping are based on evidence from research, which shows that using class ability grouping does not improve student outcomes.
“It may not be the intention, but what happens instead is that students from privileged backgrounds are placed disproportionately in the higher-class groups, while students with backgrounds that socially disadvantaged them find themselves in the lower-class groups,” she said.
“Schools might begin by looking at their data to see where their students from racially/financially minoritised backgrounds, or with disabilities are learning. Have they been placed in lower ‘ability’ classes? Does this reflect the school’s values? Are students in that class ‘catching up,’ or are they falling further behind?”
Dr Johnston said that, in general, minimising and delaying class ability grouping as much as possible is recommended.
“Where it is used, schools can take measures to ensure the practice is flexible and does not ‘lock students in’ to particular educational pathways,” she said. “All students benefit from a rigorous curriculum with high expectations regardless of their class group or ‘ability’.”
Dr Johnston said schools could even consider not using the term ‘ability’ and focusing on language that reflects growth mindsets, instead.
“If schools decide to use ‘ability’ grouping, they can ensure that students are placed based solely on achievement data rather than teacher recommendation, effort, application, or parent request,” she said. “They can make sure students in the lower streams are not further disadvantaged with inexperienced teachers or low expectations.”
Dr Johnston said schools can also reevaluate practices constantly so students are often moved, and when students are on the border between higher and lower classes, use random selection for placement.
“Schools are encouraged to try using more flexible, heterogeneous grouping practices and evaluate the difference for students using their school data. Secondary school leaders can contact me directly for more information.”
Schools should consider flexible, heterogeneous class grouping
When asked how secondary school principals can ensure class placements support equity and student growth rather than entrenching disadvantage, Dr Johnston said schools can look at data that is informing class placements “with critical eyes”.
“When a student performs poorly on NAPLAN or on a test, for example, we can ask ourselves ‘why’?” she said.
“It may not be because that student is a lower ‘ability’ and need to learn in a lower ‘ability’ class, but rather that they haven’t had a background that has promoted their success on NAPLAN or on that test.”
Dr Johnston notes that with an optimised learning environment, high teacher expectations, positive peer role modelling, and support, that student could ‘catch up.’
“I am sure that each school will have examples of students who have made huge leaps in their learning at all stages of their education. What if we did not categorise students too early as ‘capable’ or ‘not capable’, which only tends to entrench their birth and social advantages/ disadvantages?” she said.
“Flexible, heterogeneous class grouping is well established as an education tool that can move schools towards ensuring that students’ backgrounds do not determine their achievements at school.”