Cultural beliefs and equity in educational institutions: exploring the social and philosophical notions of ability groupings in teaching and learning of mathematics

ABSTRACT

This research article examines the widespread practice of ability grouping in educational systems across different countries, exploring its impact on academic achievement and its implications for equity among mathematics students. The findings underscore the urgent need for educational ecosystems to move away from ability grouping and embrace alternative pedagogical approaches that foster growth mindsets, equitable opportunities, and inclusive education for all students. The implications of this article extend beyond the immediate concerns of schools, school organizations, and mathematics education enthusiasts. Particularly, the insights gleaned from this research bear significant relevance to the development of adolescents and youths on a broader scale. The insights provided by this study are relevant to parents, educators, policymakers, and anyone interested in fostering an educational landscape that equips adolescents and young people with the skills, attitudes, and opportunities needed for success in a diverse and complex world.

KEYWORDS:

• mathematics education
• pedagogy
• curriculum
• student achievement
• growth mindset
• educational reform

Introduction

Ability refers to a discrete level of intellectual acumen attributed to individuals (Boaler, 2013; Park & Datnow, 2017). It is an individual’s inherent or acquired capacity to perform a specific task, skill, or set of tasks effectively (Steel, 2005). It encompasses a range of cognitive, physical, emotional, and social attributes that contribute to one’s aptitude and proficiency in various domains, including academic, athletic, artistic, and interpersonal abilities (Hallinan & Sørensen, 1987; Slavin, 1987a). Abilities are dynamic and can be developed or enhanced over time through learning, practice, and experience (Hallinan & Sørensen, 1985a; Robert Ernest; Willcutt, 1967). The framing of ability in educational policies varies significantly among different countries, reflecting their unique cultural, historical, and societal contexts. These variations are evident in the ways nations approach education, assessment, and the recognition of students’ abilities (Robert E Willcutt, 1969). In the United States, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act brought a strong emphasis on standardized testing to measure student ability in reading and maths (Husband & Hunt, 2015; Rubin, 2011). Schools were held accountable for ensuring that all students, regardless of their background or ability, reached proficiency in these subjects (Dee & Jacob, 2011). Additionally, the U.S. recognizes the diverse abilities of students through Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) in special education, aiming to tailor educational services to each student’s abilities and challenges (Begle, 1975; Hallam & Ireson, 2001). Finland, renowned for its education system, stands out for its focus on equal opportunities. Finnish educational policies strive to provide equal opportunities for all students, irrespective of their ability or socio-economic background (Hallam & Ireson, 2001; Hollifield, 1987). The educational approach emphasizes comprehensive education that nurtures each student’s individual growth and development. In China, the concept of ability (Ireson et al., 2002; Robyn; Zevenbergen, 2003a) is often synonymous with the National College Entrance Examination, known as Gaokao. This high-stakes standardized test assesses students’ academic abilities (Slater-Brown, 2016) and plays a pivotal role in determining their access to higher education institutions, ultimately shaping their future opportunities and career paths. The United Kingdom takes a different approach, particularly in regions like Northern Ireland and parts of UK, where academic selection remains prevalent. The 11-plus exam evaluates students’ academic ability, and their performance in this test dictates their placement into different types of schools (Ekstrom & Villegas, 1991; Ireson et al., 2001), thus shaping their educational trajectories. Japan relies on merit-based entrance exams for admission to prestigious universities. These exams rigorously evaluate students’ academic abilities and significantly influence their educational and career prospects. Germany employs a tracking system (Kertes, 1932; Slavin, 1993), grouping students into different educational tracks based on perceived abilities. This system can lead to divergent educational and career paths, with some students following an academic route while others opt for vocational training. Sweden, historically known for its comprehensive schooling, has introduced more choice and differentiation in recent policies. While comprehensive education aims to minimize ability-based tracking (Borg, 1965; Hallam et al., 2008), debates have arisen regarding the potential impact on educational equity. In Singapore, a strong emphasis on meritocracy is evident. The education system evaluates students’ abilities and achievements through standardized testing, determining their placement into different tracks and influencing their educational journeys (Preckel et al., 2010; Tieso, 2003). The framing of ability in educational policies varies widely across countries, reflecting diverse societal values and priorities. These approaches range from a focus on equity and comprehensive education to systems that emphasize academic selection, tracking, and standardized testing (Hallam et al., 2003; Lleras & Rangel, 2009). Understanding these variations is crucial for comprehending the different educational landscapes globally and their potential implications for students’ learning experiences and outcomes.

Ability grouping denotes a comprehensive term encompassing any method of segregating students based on perceived intellectual capabilities, whether it occurs within the confines of a single classroom or extends across multiple classes (Wiliam & Bartholomew, 2004). The nature of ability grouping can vary, exhibiting either a degree of adaptability or rigidity (Allan, 1991; Hallam et al., 2003). The classification of students according to their perceived aptitude finds application in UK’s educational system through the utilization of the term ‘setting’ (Berends & Donaldson, 2011; Braddock & Dawkins, 1993). Under this framework, students attend distinct classes corresponding to their assessed abilities. An antiquated educational approach known as streaming was previously employed in UK. This practice entailed grouping students by their abilities across all subjects (Brassell et al., 1980; Scholz, 2004). It was prevalent in secondary schools, where students were often allocated to streamed groups from the moment they commenced their educational journey. The United States of America employs an organizational practice termed tracking, whereby divergent classes are offered, each presenting distinct papers such as calculus, algebra, advanced algebra, and geometry (Pallas et al., 1994; Ruthven, 1987). Tracking commonly begins during middle school. During this period, the track students are assigned to the subsequent high school courses they are eligible to undertake (Burris et al., 2006; Ireson & Hallam, 2009). The phenomenon of grouping students based on their present level of proficiency in mathematics engenders significant controversy within the field of mathematics education. A multitude of research investigations addressing this matter has been undertaken in diverse academic disciplines and across various nations worldwide (Hannula, 2020; Slavin, 1990a). The decision as to whether or not to employ ability grouping as an educational strategy necessitates careful consideration and thoughtful analysis (Kulik, 1993). It is a subject that elicits impassioned debates among scholars and practitioners alike (Clarke, 2021). These deliberations are propelled by the need for empirical evidence to shed light on the effectiveness and implications of ability grouping on students’ academic progression, particularly in the domain of mathematics (Winbourne, 2011).

Numerous research endeavours have been undertaken on a global scale, investigating the outcomes of ability grouping across multiple academic disciplines (Hallinan & Sørensen, 1985b; Saunders, 2005). These studies have been designed to ascertain the impact of such practices on students’ educational experiences and their subsequent understanding of mathematics. By synthesizing and analysing the findings of these research investigations, this research paper aims to present a comprehensive appraisal of the effects of ability grouping in the realm of mathematics education. The prevailing landscape of ability grouping practices will be thoroughly explored in this paper. It will delineate the various methods and approaches employed to group students based on their mathematical proficiencies. These practices may encompass a range of organizational structures, including within-class grouping, between-class grouping, or a combination thereof. The paper will illuminate the nuances and intricacies inherent in these grouping methodologies, shedding light on the flexible or rigid nature of such arrangements. The practice of ability grouping, commonly referred to as tracking or streaming, is a prevalent educational approach where students are sorted into distinct classes or groups based on their perceived mathematical abilities or academic achievements (Mills & Durden, 1992; Robyn; Zevenbergen, 2005). This practice has been the subject of extensive debate, primarily due to its potential consequences on the development of adolescents and youth. To gain insight into these effects from a psychological standpoint, it is essential to explore the potential impacts on various aspects such as self-esteem, motivation, identity formation, and long-term outcomes (Cahan et al., 1996. Starting with self-esteem and self-concept, ability grouping can exert both positive and negative influences (Nunes et al., 2009; Rubin, 2011). In higher-ability groups, students often experience an initial boost in self-esteem as they perceive themselves as academically successful (Berends & Donaldson, 2016). This positive reinforcement can lead to heightened confidence and a more positive self-concept, particularly concerning their mathematical abilities. Conversely, lower-ability groups may expose students to lower self-esteem due to the stigma associated with being labelled as ‘less capable.’ This negative self-concept may extend beyond the confines of the mathematics classroom, adversely affecting their overall self-worth and identity (Marks, 2014; Ryoo et al., 2014). In terms of motivation, ability grouping again presents a dual impact. High-achieving students in ability-grouped classes may sustain their motivation due to the challenge and competition inherent in such environments, which often drives them to strive for excellence, consequently yielding better academic outcomes. Conversely, lower-achieving students placed in lower-ability groups may encounter reduced motivation. This decline may be attributed to feelings of discouragement and disengagement, potentially leading to a self-fulfilling prophecy wherein lowered expectations result in academic underperformance (Kerckhoff, 1986; Kulik & Kulik, 1984).

Identity formation is another significant area influenced by ability grouping. For some students, this practice can reinforce a robust academic identity, fostering a sense of belonging and accomplishment within the higher-ability group (Sørensen & Hallinan, 1986). Such positive reinforcement may impact their career aspirations and self-concept, positioning them as successful learners (Kulik & Kulik, 1982). However, for others, ability grouping can cement negative self-perceptions (Kulikand & Kulik, 1987). Students in lower-ability groups may internalize the belief that they do not possess innate mathematical aptitude, which can significantly influence their long-term educational and career choices (Kulikand & Kulik, 1987). Consideration of long-term outcomes reveals that the effects of ability grouping can shape the future trajectories of students (Betts & Shkolnik, 2000a). High-achieving students placed in ability-grouped classes may be more inclined to pursue STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) careers, capitalizing on the strong foundational knowledge cultivated in these settings (Reuman et al., 1989). This can result in improved career prospects and enhanced financial stability. Conversely, lower-achieving students may face discouragement from pursuing STEM fields or any career requiring mathematical proficiency, subsequently constraining their career options and economic mobility (Meeks, 1994). Social dynamics and peer relationships within ability-grouped settings also warrant examination (Davenport, 1993). Positive experiences may occur as some students thrive within these environments, forming close bonds with peers who share their academic interests and abilities (Hoffer & Gamoran, 1993). Nevertheless, for students assigned to lower-ability groups, the potential for social isolation and stigmatization looms, increasing the risk of experiencing social and emotional challenges (Slavin & Karweit, 1985). The expectations held by teachers play a pivotal role in the outcomes associated with ability grouping (Saleh et al., 2005).

Teachers in ability-grouped classrooms may employ more tailored instructional strategies, benefiting students by addressing their specific learning needs. However, there is a critical caveat. There exists a risk that teachers might hold lower expectations for students in lower-ability groups, ultimately contributing to a self-fulfilling prophecy wherein these students receive less challenging instruction, which in turn hinders their academic growth (Solomon, 2007). Ability grouping in mathematics classrooms significantly influences the psychological experiences and long-term development of adolescents and youth (Altendorff, 2012). While it can offer certain advantages, such as enhanced self-esteem and motivation for some students, it can simultaneously perpetuate negative self-concepts and hinder long-term prospects, especially for those in lower-ability groups (Francis et al., 2017). Moreover, social dynamics and teacher expectations play pivotal roles in shaping these outcomes. Therefore, it is imperative for educational institutions and policymakers to critically evaluate the implications of ability grouping and consider more inclusive and equitable approaches to mathematics education (Webel, 2021). Ability grouping in mathematics classrooms can have a significant impact on adolescents’ and youths’ psychological well-being and development (Sahlberg, 2021). While it can benefit high-achieving students, it may potentially harm lower-achieving students in terms of self-esteem, motivation, and long-term outcomes (Catsambis et al., 2001). Schools and educators must carefully consider the psychological consequences and equity implications of such practices while seeking to provide appropriate support and opportunities for all students to thrive in mathematics education (Hallinan & Sorensen, 1983). To furnish a well-rounded perspective on the impact of ability grouping, a selection of influential research studies will be systematically examined. These studies have been designed and executed across multiple countries, encompassing a diverse range of educational contexts.

The findings and insights generated from these investigations hold considerable importance in the ongoing discourse surrounding ability grouping in mathematics education. Through the meticulous scrutiny and synthesis of research outcomes, this paper seeks to distil key insights pertaining to the effects of ability grouping on students’ experiences and comprehension of mathematics. The synthesis of these findings will enable stakeholders in the field of education to make informed decisions regarding the implementation or refinement of ability grouping practices in mathematics instruction evoking passionate discussions within the realm of education. This paper endeavours to delve into the prevailing practices associated with ability grouping and evaluate the results of pertinent research studies conducted in the domain of mathematics education. By assimilating these findings, this paper aspires to contribute to the ongoing dialogue and provide valuable insights for educators and policymakers grappling with decisions pertaining to ability grouping in mathematics instruction.

Practices of ability grouping in select countries

The cultural fabric of a society profoundly influences its educational landscape, encompassing the foundational principles that govern pedagogical practices and the allocation of students to specific academic cohorts (Boaler, 2012). Divergent cultural perspectives shape the beliefs surrounding education’s purpose, the perceived capabilities of students, and the optimal approach to fostering learning (Webb, 1982). Scholars have recognized the profound influence of culture on educational practices, as evidenced by the works of (Altendorff, 2012) and (Stigler & Hiebert, 1999). Within the context of ability grouping, UK serves as a prominent example of a country where cultural convictions have given rise to a particular educational ethos. A prevalent notion prevails that students possess inherent aptitudes that necessitate identification and subsequent differentiation in instruction (Robyn Zevenbergen, 2003b). Accordingly, educators are tasked with the vital responsibility of discerning the abilities of students at the earliest possible stage. The primary objective is to provide tailored education that aligns with the perceived potential of each student (Slavin, 1987b). Consequently, the practice of ability grouping has taken firm root within the English educational system. In this educational paradigm, the categorization of students based on their perceived potential begins at a remarkably tender age (Feldhusen & Moon, 1992). Even as young as five years old, but typically at the age of seven or eight, children are subjected to a process of placement into distinct mathematics classes or sets (Bradbury & Roberts-Holmes, 2017). The assignment of students to specific sets is predicated upon the perceptions held by educators regarding their intellectual capabilities. The purpose of this categorization is to create instructional groups that align with the perceived needs and abilities of the students, enabling more tailored instruction and progress (Anthony & Hunter, 2017).

As student progresses through the educational system, the practice of ability grouping continues to exert its influence. Upon entering secondary school, students are confronted with a system where they are placed in one of several sets (Rogers, 2018) based on their perceived potential in mathematics. The number of available sets can vary significantly, ranging from six to ten in UK. Thus, students traverse their educational journey within a system characterized by differentiated instruction and academic tracks that correspond to their perceived abilities (Esposito, 1973). Notably, an intriguing aspect of the English ability grouping system is the level of unawareness among students and parents regarding the implications associated with their assigned set until they approach final examinations. The implications of placement within a particular set, including its potential impact on future educational opportunities and trajectories, may remain obscure until a later stage in a student’s academic journey (Reuman, 1989). This lack of transparency can create a sense of uncertainty and ambiguity surrounding students’ educational paths, potentially impacting their motivation and aspirations (Dee & Jacob, 2011). The cultural underpinnings of education manifest in various ability grouping practices implemented across nations. UK, as an illustrative case, demonstrates a prevalent belief that students possess innate ‘ability,’ prompting educators to identify and instruct accordingly.

Educational inequity is a significant social issue characterized by the unequal distribution of educational resources, opportunities, and outcomes among students. It results from systemic and structural factors that lead to disparities in educational achievement and access to quality education (Stinnett, 2013). This inequity can have far-reaching consequences, not only for individuals but also for society as a whole. Within classrooms, several factors contribute to the creation of educational inequity. One of the most prominent is the unequal access to resources among schools (Campbell, 2021). Typically, schools located in lower-income neighbourhoods have fewer resources at their disposal. These resources include qualified teachers, up-to-date textbooks, technology, and extracurricular opportunities (Gamoran, 1986). The scarcity of these resources in such schools can result in a lower quality of education and limited access to advanced courses, exacerbating educational disparities (Schofield, 2010). Another contributor to educational inequity is the practice of tracking or ability grouping, where students are divided into different classes based on perceived academic ability. While this approach aims to tailor instruction to individual students’ needs, it often leads to disparities. Students placed in lower tracks may receive less challenging coursework, effectively limiting their educational opportunities and future prospects (Hall, 2014). Discipline disparities also play a role in educational inequity. Students from marginalized groups, particularly Black and Hispanic students or students from the lower caste, often face more severe disciplinary measures than their white or upper caste peers (Clarke & Clarke, 2008). Harsher disciplinary actions, such as suspensions or expulsions, result in students missing more instructional time, which directly contributes to educational inequity (Wiliam & Bartholomew, 2004). Additionally, cultural biases in curriculum materials and teaching methods can pose challenges to students from diverse backgrounds. When educational content is not culturally inclusive or sensitive, students may struggle to engage fully with the material, leading to disparities in educational outcomes (Wiliam & Bartholomew, 2004).

Teacher quality is another critical factor in educational equity. High-poverty schools tend to have less experienced and less qualified teachers, leading to instructional instability. Teacher turnover can be higher in these schools, further exacerbating the problem. Given that teacher quality significantly influences student success, disparities in teacher quality contribute to educational inequity (Betts & Shkolnik, 2000b). Early childhood education is another area where inequity arises. Low-income families often lack access to high-quality early childhood education programmes. This disadvantage at an early age can have a lasting impact on a child’s educational trajectory. Standardized testing also perpetuates educational inequity, especially when tests are biased or are the sole or primary measure of student and school success. Students who have had access to test preparation resources and advantages tend to perform better, widening educational disparities. Stereotype threat, a psychological phenomenon, can affect students’ confidence and performance in the classroom. It occurs when students from marginalized groups are aware of negative stereotypes about their abilities, leading them to underperform academically. Moreover, a lack of inclusive education can limit the opportunities for students with disabilities. Schools that do not provide appropriate accommodations or foster inclusive learning environments contribute to the educational inequity faced by these students. Addressing educational inequity necessitates systemic changes at multiple levels, including policy reform, resource allocation, teacher training, and curriculum development. The goal is to create equitable opportunities for all students, regardless of their background, ensuring they have access to a high-quality education that allows them to reach their full potential.

Within Europe, a discernible trend has emerged, prompting a re-evaluation of ability grouping practices in various educational systems. This shift in perspective stems from the recognition that ability grouping can perpetuate inequities within educational settings, potentially impeding the pursuit of parity and fairness. Scholars and researchers, such as (Sahlberg, 2021) and (Boaler, 2008), have shed light on the adverse consequences associated with ability grouping, thereby contributing to a wider discourse on alternative instructional approaches. Scandinavian countries, renowned for their progressive educational systems, have taken a distinct stance on ability grouping, with limited implementation or a complete absence of this practice. In these nations, including Finland, an emphasis is placed on creating heterogeneous learning environments that promote inclusivity and equal opportunities for all students. Finland, in particular, has garnered international acclaim for its exceptional educational outcomes, positioning itself among the highest achievers on a global scale. Central to Finland’s success is its deliberate decision to depart from ability grouping and instead adopt a predominantly heterogeneous grouping approach. The educational landscape of Finland exemplifies a departure from conventional ability grouping practices. Instead, the focus lies on fostering diversity and ensuring that students from various backgrounds and with differing levels of academic proficiency are placed together in the same instructional settings. This heterogeneity in student composition is seen as an asset, fostering a collaborative and inclusive learning environment that celebrates individual strengths and supports the holistic development of all learners (Meeks, 1994). Finland’s commitment to heterogeneity challenges the conventional wisdom associated with ability grouping and provides an alternative model that prioritizes educational equity and social cohesion. The success of Finland’s educational system, coupled with its commitment to heterogeneous grouping, serves as a testament to the viability and effectiveness of alternative approaches. By deliberately eschewing ability grouping, Finland has demonstrated that educational excellence can be achieved through inclusive instructional practices that value the diversity of learners. The Finnish model challenges the notion that ability grouping is indispensable for academic achievement, and instead underscores the importance of holistic pedagogical strategies that address the needs of all students.

It is worth noting that Finland’s success cannot be attributed solely to its rejection of ability grouping. The country’s educational achievements are the result of a holistic approach that encompasses various elements, such as well-trained teachers, a balanced curriculum, and a supportive educational infrastructure. However, the deliberate choice to eschew ability grouping has undoubtedly contributed to the cultivation of a positive and inclusive educational environment that fosters the optimal development of all learners. In numerous European countries, a noticeable departure from the practice of ability grouping is becoming increasingly evident (Davenport, 1993; Hoffer & Gamoran, 1993). This shift is primarily driven by growing concerns about achieving equity in education. Notably, Scandinavian nations, such as Finland, have emerged as prominent examples in this shift, as they predominantly favour heterogeneous grouping practices. Finland’s remarkable success on the international stage demonstrates that educational excellence can be achieved by embracing inclusivity and valuing the diverse strengths and abilities of students. The Finnish model challenges the prevailing assumptions about the necessity of ability grouping and offers an alternative approach that prioritizes educational equity and the holistic development of learners. Across the Asian continent, numerous educational systems have embraced a distinct perspective on learning, which challenges the traditional concept of fixed ability. This perspective, prevalent in many Pacific Rim countries, is predicated on the belief that academic progress is primarily determined by the level of effort exerted by students. Contrary to the notion of innate ability, this viewpoint emphasizes the malleability of learning and underscores the significance of hard work and dedication.

In Japan, specifically, a strong consensus has emerged among educators, parents, and the wider society, opposing the practice of segregating students into different levels based on perceived abilities. This opposition is grounded in multiple concerns that revolve around the potential negative consequences of ability grouping (Saleh et al., 2005; Slavin & Karweit, 1985). Japanese stakeholders fear that such practices would perpetuate inequality within the educational system. Moreover, they worry about the adverse effects on children’s self-perception, social development, and the healthy spirit of academic competition. The prevailing sentiment in Japan, as elucidated by (Bracey, 2003), reflects a deep-rooted belief in the principles of equity and the importance of nurturing a positive and inclusive educational environment. Japanese educators and parents share the conviction that children should not be subjected to assessments or categorizations that may undermine their self-esteem or contribute to an unhealthy sense of competition. Instead, the focus is on providing a comprehensive and holistic education that values each child’s unique potential and fosters a positive learning environment. In contrast to the ability grouping practices found in some educational systems (Altendorff, 2012; Solomon, 2007), the Japanese approach emphasizes the development of well-rounded individuals who are equipped with a broad range of skills and knowledge. This philosophy recognizes the importance of nurturing students’ social and emotional well-being alongside their academic growth. By promoting an inclusive and supportive educational environment, Japan aims to maximize the potential of all students and cultivate a sense of unity and cooperation. The Japanese perspective on education aligns with the broader Asian emphasis on effort-based learning, which rejects the notion of fixed ability. This approach recognizes that individuals have the capacity to develop and improve through dedicated effort and perseverance (Francis et al., 2017; Webel, 2021). By focusing on effort rather than predetermined ability, Asian countries seek to create educational systems that foster growth mindsets and encourage students to embrace challenges, persist in the face of obstacles, and continuously strive for improvement (Catsambis et al., 2001; Sahlberg, 2021). Many Asian countries, including India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nepal, have adopted education systems that prioritize effort-based learning over fixed notions of ability. In Japan, in particular, the prevailing consensus opposes the practice of segregating students based on perceived abilities, viewing it as detrimental to equity, self-image, socialization, and healthy academic competition. Instead, these countries emphasize the importance of nurturing inclusive and supportive educational environments that value effort, encourage growth mindsets, and foster the holistic development of students (Boaler, 2012; Hallinan & Sorensen, 1983). By embracing these perspectives, Asian educational systems seek to maximize the potential of all learners and cultivate a culture of perseverance, cooperation, and continuous improvement.

Within the educational landscape of the United States, the organization of mathematics instruction often incorporates a system called ‘tracking’ as a means of ability grouping (Drowatzky, 1981). This approach, prevalent in middle and high schools, facilitates the differentiation of students based on their perceived mathematical abilities and readiness for advanced coursework. While elementary school classrooms usually function as inclusive learning environments, middle school introduces a shift whereby students encounter a range of maths courses tailored to their individual needs (Cohen & Lotan, 1997). Upon entering middle school, students are presented with a variety of maths courses to accommodate their differing skill levels and mathematical proficiencies. These course options typically encompass algebra, pre-algebra, and advanced algebra, providing students with the opportunity to engage with content that aligns with their perceived abilities and prepares them for subsequent high school mathematics coursework. The allocation of students to specific courses during this critical juncture plays a pivotal role in shaping their academic trajectories and potential future mathematical achievements. Crucially, the placement of students in middle school serves as a decisive factor in determining the range of mathematics courses available to them throughout their high school years. A student’s completion of algebra during middle school stands as a prerequisite for progression to more advanced mathematical topics, such as calculus, by the time they reach the culmination of their high school education. This early determination of a student’s mathematical proficiency establishes a trajectory that significantly impacts their subsequent academic journey, potentially opening doors to more advanced mathematical concepts and opportunities. Tracking, as an ability grouping practice, offers a distinct characteristic that sets it apart from other grouping approaches. Unlike certain forms of grouping that may lack transparency or clear visibility regarding the placement of students, tracking ensures that everyone involved, including students, parents, and educators, possesses a comprehensive understanding of the specific course a student has been assigned to. This transparency fosters an environment of clarity and awareness, enabling students and stakeholders to comprehend and navigate the educational landscape more effectively (Loveless, 1998). In essence, tracking in the United States is an organizational practice employed within mathematics education that facilitates the grouping of students based on their perceived abilities and preparedness for advanced coursework (MacIntyre & Ireson, 2002). The system provides students with the opportunity to engage with mathematics at a level commensurate with their individual skills, ensuring a more tailored and differentiated learning experience (Lou et al., 1996). The determination of course placements during middle school significantly influences the range of high school mathematics courses available to students, with the completion of algebra serving as a pivotal milestone for accessing more advanced topics. The transparency associated with tracking sets it apart from other forms of ability grouping, as it ensures that the placement of students into specific courses is readily apparent to all parties involved. The examination of ability grouping practices on a national scale has been facilitated by the comprehensive analysis of data from globally recognized assessments, namely TIMSS and SIMSS (Anthony et al., 2016; Braddock & Slavin, 1992). By scrutinizing the relationship between ability grouping and academic performance, researchers have identified intriguing patterns and trends that shed light on the educational landscapes of different countries. The evidence gathered suggests that countries that adopt a more flexible and delayed approach to ability grouping tend to excel in terms of academic achievement, positioning themselves as global leaders in education (Boaler, 2008).

Notably, recent international assessments such as PISA and TIMSS have consistently showcased the impressive performance of Korea, Japan, and Finland. These countries have demonstrated exceptional educational outcomes despite their rejection of rigid ability grouping practices. By implementing alternative instructional approaches that prioritize inclusivity and deemphasize fixed notions of ability, these nations have emerged as top contenders in the world rankings of educational excellence (Steenbergen-Hu et al., 2016). The success of Korea, Japan, and Finland in international assessments serves as a testament to the viability and effectiveness of educational systems that eschew inflexible ability grouping. By refraining from early sorting and categorization of students, these countries create learning environments that value diversity, encourage equitable opportunities for all learners, and foster holistic development (Hallam & Toutounji, 1996). This approach to education aligns with their cultural beliefs and emphasizes the importance of effort, perseverance, and comprehensive educational experiences (Ireson et al., 2005). It is important to note that the impact of ability grouping has also been investigated within individual countries, shedding further light on the implications of these practices on students’ academic outcomes. Conducting studies on a national scale enables researchers to explore the diverse contexts and educational systems within a single country and examine the effects of ability grouping across different regions and populations (Boaler & Wiliam, 2002). These studies offer valuable insights into the complexities and nuances of ability grouping and its relationship with educational attainment. By delving into within-country analyses, researchers have gained a deeper understanding of the multifaceted nature of ability grouping and its implications for students’ academic trajectories. These studies explore how varying forms of ability grouping, such as tracking, setting, or streaming, impact students’ educational experiences, opportunities, and outcomes. The findings from within-country studies contribute to the broader conversation surrounding ability grouping and provide valuable insights for educators, policymakers, and stakeholders seeking to optimize educational practices and promote equitable outcomes (Bracey, 2003). The examination of different countries’ practices regarding the grouping of students has been enhanced through the utilization of data from international assessments such as TIMSS and SIMSS. The evidence suggests that countries that employ ability grouping in a more flexible and delayed manner tend to achieve higher levels of academic success. Korea, Japan, and Finland – countries that reject rigid ability grouping – have consistently attained top rankings in recent international assessments. Within-country studies have also provided valuable insights into the effects of ability grouping on students’ educational experiences and outcomes. By analysing both national and within-country data, researchers strive to inform educational policies and practices to foster inclusive and high-achieving educational environments.

Inequality, segregation, and social justice

Author, Jeannie Oakes, is a renowned education researcher and scholar known for her work on educational equity and social justice. Keeping track: How schools structure inequality by Jeannie Oakes is a seminal book in the field of education that addresses issues of educational inequality and tracking within the American education system (Oakes, 2005). The book provides a detailed examination of how the education system in the United States often sorts students into different tracks or pathways based on their perceived abilities and socio-economic backgrounds. This tracking system, according to Oakes, results in significant disparities in educational opportunities and outcomes (Oakes, 1992). Schools frequently group students into different tracks, classes, or programmes based on factors such as standardized test scores, teacher recommendations, or parental influence (Oakes, 2008). These tracks can be divided along lines of race, ethnicity, income, and perceived academic abilities (Oakes, 1986). Tracking system can lead to educational segregation, with minority and low-income students often being disproportionately placed in lower-track classes. This perpetuates inequality in access to educational resources and opportunities. Oakes explores the academic and social consequences of tracking. Students in lower tracks may receive a less rigorous curriculum, fewer educational resources, and lower expectations from teachers. This can limit their educational and career prospects (Oakes, 1982). Oakes calls for comprehensive educational reform aimed at reducing tracking and increasing educational equity. She argues for more inclusive and equitable approaches to education that ensure all students have access to high-quality educational experiences. She discusses the policy implications of tracking and offers suggestions for policymakers, educators, and communities interested in addressing these issues. Her work is a critical examination of the tracking system within the American education system and its impact on educational inequality. It argues for a more equitable approach to education that values and supports the diverse learning needs of all students, regardless of their socio-economic background or perceived academic abilities. Her work has been influential in discussions and efforts to promote educational equity and reform in the United States.

Alfie Kohn is a well-known author, educator, and advocate for progressive education and parenting approaches. Alfie Kohn explores the impact of privilege and parental behaviour on educational reform efforts (Kohn, 2006). Kohn is known for addressing how privilege, particularly economic and social privilege, can influence the educational experiences of children. He highlights the disparities between privileged and underprivileged students in terms of access to resources, opportunities, and the impact this has on educational outcomes. Privileged parents sometimes use their resources and influence to secure advantages for their own children within the educational system. This may include lobbying for specific educational policies, funding initiatives, or even seeking preferential treatment for their children. These actions by privileged parents can have both positive and negative effects on broader school reform efforts. While parents advocating for their own children’s interests can result in improved conditions for some students, it may also hinder efforts to create more equitable and fair educational systems (Kohn, 1993). Kohn advocates for more equitable and inclusive educational practices and policies that benefit all students, not just those who are privileged.

The responsibility placed on educators to discern the abilities of their students is a multifaceted and challenging aspect of teaching (Venkatakrishnan & Wiliam, 2003). It necessitates a deep understanding of each learner’s unique capacities and potential (Drowatzky, 1981). However, it is crucial to acknowledge that this process is far from an exact science and can, at times, lead to the ‘misplacement’ of students within ability groups. Let us delve into the complexities and potential pitfalls that educators encounter when tasked with assessing and placing students based on their abilities. To begin with, abilities in an educational context encompass a broad spectrum of dimensions. These include cognitive abilities, such as problem-solving and critical thinking, as well as social and emotional skills like empathy and communication (Linchevski & Kutscher, 1998; Zevenbergen, 2002). Furthermore, domain-specific skills, such as mathematical proficiency or artistic talent, also contribute to a student’s overall abilities. Educators must navigate this intricate landscape, recognizing that abilities extend far beyond a single dimension. Assessment methods serve as a critical tool for educators in their quest to gauge students’ abilities. These methods encompass a variety of approaches, including standardized tests, classroom observations, portfolio assessments, interviews, and formative assessments (Stigler & Hiebert, 1999). However, each method possesses inherent limitations and may not provide a comprehensive view of a student’s abilities. Consequently, educators must exercise caution when relying solely on one assessment type.

The subjectivity and biases that educators bring to the assessment process add another layer of complexity. Unconscious biases, stemming from factors like race, gender, socioeconomic status, or even a teacher’s personal experiences, can inadvertently influence perceptions of students’ abilities. Such biases can lead to the ‘misplacement’ of students, as they may be judged based on factors that are unrelated to their true capabilities (Gamoran, 1992). Developmental variability further compounds the challenge of discerning abilities. Children and adolescents develop at different rates and in diverse ways. What may appear as a lack of ability during one stage of development might transform as student matures (Slavin, 1988). Some students may even be considered ‘late bloomers,’ requiring time to reach their full potential. Thus, early assessments may not always accurately reflect a student’s ultimate abilities. Educators’ beliefs about intelligence also play a pivotal role in the assessment process. A fixed mindset, which perceives intelligence as a static trait, can lead to underestimating students’ potential for growth (Boaler et al., 2000; Glassman, 1989). Conversely, a growth mindset recognizes that abilities can be cultivated over time, motivating educators to provide appropriate support and guidance to help students reach their full potential. The consequences of ‘misplacement’ within ability groups can be profound. Placing a student in a group that does not align with their actual abilities can have detrimental effects (Boaler et al., 2000; Neihart, 2007). For instance, if a student is assigned to a group where the material is too easy, they may become bored and disengaged. Conversely, if the work is excessively challenging, it can lead to frustration and self-esteem issues. These experiences can significantly influence a student’s overall educational journey (Hunter et al., 2020; Useem, 1990). In response to these challenges, the concept of inclusive education has gained prominence. Inclusive education models recognize the benefits of accommodating students with diverse abilities within mainstream classrooms. These models challenge traditional ability grouping practices by emphasizing that students thrive in diverse learning environments (Marsh, 1984; Wilkinson et al., 2016). Moreover, they promote the idea that abilities are not fixed but can be nurtured through inclusive teaching strategies (Chamberlin & Schultz, 2021; Hallam & Ireson, 2003). To mitigate the risks associated with ‘misplacement,’ educators should adopt an approach that includes ongoing assessment and flexibility in grouping (Husband & Hunt, 2015). Regularly reassessing students’ abilities and adjusting groupings based on their progress can lead to more accurate placement and provide better support for individual learning needs (Tan & Dimmock, 2022). By recognizing the complexity of assessing abilities and employing inclusive educational practices, educators can strive to make more precise assessments and support students in reaching their full potential.

Fairness, equity, academic success, and ability grouping

Several studies have been conducted within countries that implement ability grouping practices, including the U.S.A., Israel, Australia, and UK. This paper presents examples from these countries, examining the academic achievement of students taught in ability groups compared to those taught in heterogeneous settings. In the United States (Burris et al., 2006), conducted a study comparing six consecutive cohorts of pupils enrolled in a secondary school in New York. Over the course of the study, the researchers observed the instructional practices in the school, which initially employed tracking to separate students into different ability-based classes. The high-track students received instruction in an advanced curriculum, following the common practice in American schools. However, a significant change occurred during the subsequent three years, where all students in grades seven to nine were taught using mixed-ability classes, with the entire cohort being exposed to an advanced curriculum. Furthermore, ninth-grade students received instruction in an accelerated algebra course. Examining the impact of ability grouping on academic achievement extends beyond the United States. Studies in countries such as Israel, Australia, and UK have also explored this phenomenon. By analysing these varied educational contexts, researchers have gained valuable insights. In UK, studies have scrutinized the outcomes of students placed in different ability groups. These investigations have shed light on the educational landscape of UK’s schools, where ability grouping is a prevalent practice. The findings have highlighted both the advantages and disadvantages of such grouping methods, offering valuable information to inform educational policies and practices. Similarly, Australia has been the subject of research regarding ability grouping. These studies have examined the impact of ability grouping on students’ academic progress and achievement (Francis et al., 2019; Ireson & Hallam, 1999). By evaluating the outcomes of students taught in both ability-based groups and heterogeneous settings, researchers have gained a nuanced understanding of the effects of grouping practices on students’ learning experiences. In Israel, investigations have focused on the consequences of ability grouping in the educational system. Researchers have explored the relationships between grouping practices, student achievement (Betts & Shkolnik, 2000a, 2000b), and the overall educational environment. These studies have contributed to the broader understanding of ability grouping and its implications for students’ academic outcomes in diverse cultural and educational contexts.

Several research investigations have been carried out in those countries that have utilized ability grouping practices, such as UK, Australia, Israel, and the U.S.A. (Boaler, 2005, 2005; Ireson & Hallam, 1999; Johnston, 2006). These studies have compared the academic achievements of students educated in heterogeneous settings with those who were educated in ability groupings. Findings from the U.S.A. suggest that de-tracking and transitioning to mixed-ability classes can lead to positive outcomes, with increased enrolment in advanced classes, higher pass rates, and accelerated exam success (Boaler, 2005; Webel & Dwiggins, 2019). Studies in other countries have also explored the effects of ability grouping, providing valuable insights into the complex relationship between grouping practices and student outcomes. By examining these diverse educational contexts, researchers aim to inform educational policies and practices that promote inclusive and equitable learning environments. In UK, a research study tracked the progress of 14,000 children over the course of a year, comparing those taught in ability-based sets with those taught in heterogeneous groups during years 4 and 6. The study revealed that setting, or grouping students according to perceived ability, impeded students’ progress. Conversely, the performance of those pupils who were educated in heterogeneous groups was substantially good on assessments, that examined their mathematical reasoning (Nunes et al., 2009). These findings challenge the assumptions underlying ability grouping practices in UK. The research indicates that setting students according to perceived ability can impede their progress and have negative social and personal consequences. It highlights the arbitrary nature of group allocation and the potential mismatch between assigned work and students’ actual abilities.

The Primary Review report sheds light on the need to critically evaluate the effectiveness and fairness of ability grouping practices. While teachers may have well-intentioned motivations for implementing such grouping, it is crucial to consider the individual needs and abilities of students rather than relying on broad categorizations (Gamoran et al., 1995; Hallam et al., 2004; Slavin, 1990b). The evidence presented suggests that students in lower-ability groups may not receive appropriately challenging work, hindering their academic growth and potentially affecting their self-perception and motivation. The detrimental effects of ability grouping on social and personal outcomes underscore the importance of promoting inclusive and equitable learning environments. The report’s findings emphasize the need to move beyond assumptions about students’ fixed abilities and consider the diverse range of learners within a classroom (Francome & Hewitt, 2020). By embracing more flexible instructional approaches and fostering heterogeneous groupings, educators can create an environment that supports the individual needs and potential of all students (Bailey & Bridges, 2016; Wilkinson & Penney, 2022). To further examine the long-term effects of ability grouping, a follow-up study was conducted with the students who had attended the different schools in UK, approximately eight years later. The findings revealed that adults who had experienced ability grouping in their school were employed in less professional occupations, and these individuals explicitly linked the limitations in their job prospects to the use of ability grouping during their schooling years (Boaler, 2005, 2008, 2012, 2013). These studies provide substantial evidence that supports the argument against ability grouping. By analysing the performance and outcomes of students in schools utilizing diverse grouping approaches, researchers have consistently found that ability grouping diminishes overall achievement (Kulikand & Kulik, 1987). This negative impact is primarily attributed to the restrictive nature of ability grouping, which limits opportunities for success by segregating students and offering high-level content exclusively to a select few (Dweck, 2006; Hoffer, 1992). Moreover, the implicit message conveyed by ability grouping, that only certain individuals are considered high achievers, has been identified as a demotivating factor for students (Cheeseman & Klooger, 2018). This psychological effect can undermine students’ self-confidence and hinder their academic progress (Slavin & Karweit, 1984).

The limitation of opportunities for success and the negative psychological impact associated with ability grouping contribute to this outcome. On the contrary, research supports the benefits of mixed-ability groupings, as students in such settings consistently achieve higher levels of performance and experience more equitable outcomes (Fuligni et al., 1995; Loveless, 1998; Mulkey et al., 2005). The long-term effects of ability grouping on individuals’ job prospects further emphasize the drawbacks of this practice. Collectively, these findings provide a compelling argument against the use of ability grouping and emphasize the importance of fostering inclusive and equitable learning environments. Zevenbergen carried out a study in an Australian setting where the pupils’ beliefs in high- and low-academic achievement groups were examined, uncovering significant differences in their experiences of mathematics and the formation of their self-perception based on their group placement (Zevenbergen, 2003a, 2003b, 2005). Students in low groups reported a fundamentally distinct encounter with mathematics, one characterized by subpar teaching quality and a feeling of disempowerment. Conversely, students in high-achievement groups testified instructions of super high quality and a feeling of empowerment. These findings shed light on the contrasting experiences and outcomes associated with different ability groups within the educational context. Moreover, Zevenbergen’s research elucidated that students belonging to low-achievement cohorts voiced discontentment regarding the degree of stimulation present in their designated tasks. They conveyed that their accomplishments were hindered due to inadequate instruction of the material that would be evaluated in examinations – a perception that resonates with analogous sentiments articulated by students within lower cohorts in UK (Boaler, 2005, 2008, 2012, 2013; Boaler et al., 2000). This consistent finding across different countries emphasizes the shared experience of students in low-ability groups, who often encounter limited opportunities to engage with challenging content aligned with assessments (Knupfer, 1993; Tach & Farkas, 2006).

The differential experiences of students in low and high groups, provide valuable insights into the impact of ability grouping on students’ perceptions of themselves and their educational journeys. Students in low groups not only face academic challenges but also grapple with a compromised sense of self, influenced by their placement within a particular ability group (Betts & Shkolnik, 2000b; Oakes, 1986, 2008). The discrepancy in reported teaching quality and feelings of empowerment highlights the profound impact that ability grouping can have on students’ educational experiences and psychological well-being. Moreover, these findings raise concerns about the potential consequences of ability grouping, particularly for students in low-achievement groups. The perception of low-quality teaching and a sense of disempowerment among students in these groups suggests that ability grouping may perpetuate inequitable educational experiences and hinder students’ educational progress (Oakes, 2005; Wiliam & Bartholomew, 2004). The discrepancy in educational experiences based on ability grouping can contribute to disparities in achievement and further exacerbate existing inequalities within the educational system. It is worth noting that Zevenbergen’s research focused specifically on the Australian context, providing unique insights into the beliefs and experiences of students within this particular educational landscape. By delving into the encounters of students situated within low- and high-achievement cohorts, the investigation adds to a more comprehensive comprehension of the repercussions of ability stratification on the educational trajectories of students and their self-perceptions as knowledge seekers (Clarke & Clarke, 2008; Hall, 2014; Schofield, 2010). The convergences between Zevenbergen’s Australian research outcomes and the documented observations of students in lower cohorts in UK, as expounded upon by (Boaler & Wiliam, 2002; Boaler et al., 2000), emphasize the universal nature of the obstacles encountered by students confined to low-ability groups. The consistent report of work being perceived as too easy and the resulting limitations in achievement align with the notion that ability grouping can hinder students’ academic growth by failing to provide appropriately challenging learning opportunities. These findings, coupled with the parallel observations from students in low groups in UK, contribute to a growing body of evidence indicating that ability grouping can perpetuate inequitable educational experiences and hinder students’ academic progress. The insights gained from this research serve as a call to reconsider the use of ability grouping and advocate for more inclusive and equitable educational practices that promote the optimal learning and development of all students, regardless of their initial perceived ability.

Research by (Linchevski & Kutscher, 1998) in the Israeli setting, aimed to understand how different approaches to grouping students in classrooms influenced their academic outcomes. Notably, their findings revealed intriguing patterns that had implications for students across the attainment spectrum. The studies conducted by (Linchevski & Kutscher, 1998) indicated that students with average and below-average levels of attainment demonstrated higher achievement when taught in mixed-ability classes. In contrast, high-achieving students performed at a similar level whether they were taught in same-ability classes or mixed-ability classes. This intriguing finding challenges the conventional assumption that same-ability grouping is necessary for high-achieving students to excel academically. The observation that high-achieving students achieved similar levels of success in both same-ability and mixed-ability classes aligns with the results reported in other studies, such as (Hallam & Toutounji, 1996) and (Slavin, 1990a, 1990b). These studies also found that high-attaining students did not experience a decline in their academic performance when placed in mixed-ability settings. These consistent findings from different studies support the notion that high achievers can thrive academically irrespective of the type of grouping arrangement. Moreover, Linchevski and Kutscher’s research revealed that poorly performing students in mixed-ability classes demonstrated higher levels of achievement when compared to their counterparts who were placed in same-ability classes. This finding suggests that mixed-ability groupings provide an advantageous learning environment for students with varying levels of attainment, fostering improved academic outcomes for those who may have initially struggled or been deemed as average achievers. The collective evidence suggests that mixed-ability classes can provide a supportive and enriching learning environment that benefits students who may otherwise struggle in same-ability settings.

The implications of Linchevski and Kutscher’s findings are significant for educational practices and policy decisions. Their research challenges the widely held assumption that same-ability grouping is the most effective approach for all students. Instead, it highlights the potential benefits of mixed-ability groupings, particularly for students with average and below-average attainment. These findings suggest that more inclusive instructional practices that foster collaboration and support within mixed-ability classrooms can lead to improved academic outcomes for a broader range of students. It is worth noting that Linchevski and Kutscher’s studies were specifically conducted in the Israeli context, providing unique insights into the impact of grouping practices within that educational system. The consistent findings across different studies, such as Hallam and Toutounji (1996) and Slavin (1990a, 1990b), provide further support for the generalizability of the observed patterns beyond a single country or educational context. Linchevski and Kutscher’s research in Israel shed light on the impact of grouping on student achievement. Their findings suggest that mixed-ability classes can promote higher levels of achievement for students with average and below-average attainment while maintaining comparable levels of success for high-achieving students. These findings align with the results reported in other studies and challenge the assumption that same-ability grouping is universally advantageous. The implications of this research call for a reconsideration of grouping practices and the adoption of more inclusive instructional approaches that accommodate the diverse learning needs of students. By creating supportive learning environments that foster collaboration and individual growth, educators can promote enhanced academic outcomes for students across the attainment spectrum.

The impact of ability grouping on educational equity is a critical concern that warrants attention (Francis et al., 2019). Studies have consistently shown that ability grouping exacerbates disparities among students, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds. This phenomenon is evident in the disproportionate enrolment of students with lower socioeconomic status and ethnic minority students in lower-ability classes. The discriminatory patterns that emerge from ability grouping perpetuate existing inequities within the education system, reinforcing social inequalities and limiting opportunities for historically marginalized groups (Solomon, 2007). Moreover, the inequities associated with ability grouping extend beyond student composition and enrolment patterns. They also encompass the quality of instruction provided to students in different groups. In many instances, lower-ability classes are assigned teachers who possess lower qualifications and are less experienced. These teachers, often burdened by low expectations for their students, inadvertently contribute to a cycle of diminished opportunities and subpar educational experiences. As a result, students in lower-ability groups face additional barriers to achieving their full potential, further widening the achievement gap. Conversely, research has consistently highlighted the benefits of mixed-ability approaches to teaching in terms of promoting educational equity. Scholars such as (Cohen & Lotan, 1997; Linchevski & Kutscher, 1998), and (Boaler, 2005, 2008) have demonstrated that classrooms where students with diverse abilities learn together tend to produce more equitable outcomes. By embracing mixed-ability instruction, educators create inclusive learning environments that foster collaboration, respect for diverse perspectives, and individualized support. In these settings, students from various backgrounds and ability levels have equal opportunities to thrive academically, breaking free from the constraints imposed by ability grouping. The findings from these studies underscore the urgent need to reconsider the reliance on ability grouping as a means of organizing students in educational settings. The perpetuation of inequities through this practice undermines the fundamental principles of fairness, social justice, and equal access to quality education. As educators and policymakers, it is imperative to acknowledge the deleterious ramifications of ability-based stratification on marginalized student populations and undertake proactive measures to redress these disparities. Efforts to promote educational equity should encompass comprehensive reforms that challenge traditional notions of ability and emphasize inclusive pedagogical practices. This includes providing professional development opportunities for teachers to enhance their instructional strategies (Gamoran, 1986, 1992; Hoffer & Gamoran, 1993), fostering culturally responsive teaching approaches, and implementing interventions aimed at dismantling the systemic biases that perpetuate inequities within education systems. By embracing mixed-ability instruction and prioritizing equitable practices, educational institutions can create an environment that empowers all students to reach their full potential, irrespective of their background or perceived ability. This shift towards inclusivity fosters a sense of belonging, encourages collaboration, and promotes the development of critical thinking skills necessary for success in an increasingly diverse and interconnected world (Anthony & Hunter, 2017; Esposito, 1973; Reuman, 1989; Rogers, 2018).

Neoliberalism and market-driven approaches

In the realm of mathematics education and youth studies, a significant body of literature has explored the impact of neoliberalism and market-driven ideologies on these domains. Neoliberalism, characterized by limited government intervention in markets and a focus on privatization, competition, and outcome measurement, has often led to a concentration on quantitative metrics and standardized testing (Gekara & Snell, 2018). Unfortunately, this has sometimes resulted in a neglect of broader educational objectives, issues of equity, and the well-being of students (Scott, 2011). One evident manifestation of this neoliberal influence is the widespread use of standardized testing to assess student performance (Osei-Kofi, 2012). For instance, in the United States, the No Child Left Behind Act mandated the use of standardized tests to hold schools accountable for maths and reading scores. While standardized tests can provide valuable data, they often prioritize narrow learning objectives, effectively promoting a ‘teaching to the test’ approach. Consequently, educators may concentrate on test preparation at the expense of fostering deeper mathematical understanding and critical thinking skills in students. Market-driven dynamics have further compounded the challenges in mathematics education. A notable example is the proliferation of for-profit educational companies offering maths textbooks, software, and test preparation materials (Giroux, 2010). This market-driven approach can sometimes prioritize profit margins over the quality of educational resources. Frequent textbook updates and digital maths programs without adequate personalized support for struggling students create inefficiencies and inequalities within the educational system (Cannella & Koro-Ljungberg, 2017).

Neoliberalism has also been associated with educational policy decisions that inadvertently exacerbate inequalities in educational access (Spina et al., 2021). For example, the expansion of charter schools and voucher programmes in some countries has offered choices to families but has also raised concerns about equity. High-performing charter schools enrol fewer students with disabilities, leaving traditional public schools with a disproportionate share of these students and fewer resources to support them. The pressure to meet performance targets set by neoliberal policies has profound implications for both students and teachers (Anwaruddin, 2013). High-stakes exams like the GCSEs in the UK or the SATs in the United States create enormous pressure on students to achieve high test scores. This can result in stress and anxiety, potentially impacting their overall well-being (Giroux, 2002). For teachers, the pressure to secure funding or maintain employment can lead to a ‘teaching to the test’ mentality, which may not always align with the best interests of students’ learning experiences. In the pursuit of standardized metrics and objectives, the broader goals of equity and well-being can sometimes be overlooked (Shiller, 2011). Educational systems that prioritize test score improvements may inadvertently perpetuate systemic inequalities in access to quality maths education. Funding disparities and unequal access to experienced teachers may persist or worsen when the primary focus is solely on meeting these performance metrics (Pratt, 2016). Furthermore, the emphasis on quantitative measurements diminishes students’ interest and engagement in mathematics. Curricula that lean heavily on rote memorization and test-taking strategies lead students to perceive maths as a mundane chore, detached from real-life problem-solving. Consequently, their motivation to pursue mathematics-related careers or engage in mathematical thinking beyond the classroom is undermined. In this context, alternative forms of assessment that measure creativity, critical thinking, problem-solving, and collaborative skills are sometimes sidelined. These skills are integral to mathematics and real-world applications but may not be adequately recognized or encouraged within systems driven by neoliberal ideologies. The influence of neoliberalism and market-driven approaches in mathematics education and youth studies has resulted in a strong emphasis on quantitative measures and standardized testing while sometimes sidelining broader educational objectives, equity considerations, student well-being, and fostering genuine interest in mathematics. Critics argue that a more holistic and equitable approach to mathematics education should consider a wider range of outcomes and prioritize the diverse needs and experiences of students.

Conclusion

The amassed corpus of evidence from diverse nations across the globe overwhelmingly indicates that ability-based stratification exerts deleterious consequences on the scholastic accomplishments of students assigned to lower- and moderate-ability groups, without demonstrating any perceivable influence on high-achieving students. Despite the substantial weight carried by this evidence, ability grouping persists as a prevalent practice in certain countries, predominantly within English-speaking nations of the Western world. This persistence may be attributed to a prevailing belief in these countries that students possess inherent and unchangeable levels of ability. In contrast, countries that embrace the belief in the potential for high achievement among all students or prioritize the principle of equity demonstrate reduced reliance on ability grouping, especially in the early years of education. The cultural tenets pertaining to learning and the notions surrounding intelligence have become deeply ingrained, rendering the task of effecting substantial change arduous. Consequently, the perpetuation of ability-based stratification in select countries upholds a system that confers advantages upon specific students while detrimentally impacting others. The accumulation of empirical evidence from diverse countries provides compelling support for the argument against ability grouping. Studies consistently highlight the negative consequences experienced by students placed in lower-ability groups. These students face limited opportunities for academic advancement and are often subjected to curricula that are less challenging and engaging. The detrimental impact on their academic achievement is clear. Conversely, high-attaining students, irrespective of whether they are placed in ability groups or mixed-ability settings, tend to achieve at similar levels. The absence of any noticeable advantage for high-attaining students in ability groups underscores the ineffectiveness of this practice in enhancing their learning outcomes.

Despite the overwhelming evidence against ability grouping, its continued prevalence in certain countries demands examination. Cultural beliefs play a pivotal role in shaping educational practices, and Western societies, in particular, have traditionally embraced the notion of fixed and inherent abilities. This deeply ingrained belief system contributes to the perpetuation of ability grouping as an educational strategy. It is important to recognize that changing such deeply rooted beliefs is a formidable task that requires concerted efforts across multiple levels of the education system. Countries that have moved away from ability grouping demonstrate a recognition that high achievement is attainable for all students. This shift in perspective aligns with the research of (Dweck, 2006), who emphasizes the importance of cultivating a growth mindset. According to Dweck’s theory, intelligence and abilities are not fixed traits but can be developed through effort and effective learning strategies. Embracing this perspective challenges the notion that students have predetermined levels of ability and opens up possibilities for equitable and inclusive educational practices. Moreover, countries that prioritize equity as a guiding principle in education have also shown a reduced reliance on ability grouping. The work of (Sahlberg, 2021) highlights the importance of fostering an equitable education system that provides equal opportunities for all students. In such systems, ability grouping is viewed as an impediment to achieving equitable outcomes. By eschewing ability grouping, these countries create an environment that promotes fairness, inclusivity, and the belief that every student has the potential to succeed.

The enduring prevalence of ability-based stratification in certain countries, notwithstanding the escalating body of evidence against its effectiveness and equity ramifications, accentuates the intricate nature of educational reform. Cultural beliefs, societal expectations, and institutional inertia all contribute to the perpetuation of this practice. To effect meaningful change, it is necessary to challenge deeply ingrained cultural beliefs about learning and intelligence, engage in professional development to equip educators with alternative pedagogical strategies, and implement policies that promote inclusive and equitable practices. The vast array of empirical evidence from around the world substantiates the contention that ability-based stratification impedes the scholastic accomplishments of students placed within lower- and moderate-ability cohorts, while failing to confer any observable advantage upon high-achieving students. However, ability grouping still persists in certain countries, particularly those with a strong belief in fixed ability and a lesser emphasis on equity. Overcoming deeply entrenched cultural beliefs and effecting systemic change are formidable tasks. However, by embracing the principles of growth mindset and equity, educational systems can transcend ability grouping and create inclusive environments that foster the success of all students.

To address the challenges associated with ability grouping and promote a growth mindset approach while fostering equity in education, it is essential to consider powerful and actionable conclusions that can be implemented in schools and supported by policy experts. First and foremost, eliminating ability grouping practices is a crucial step. Schools should phase out or completely eliminate these practices, especially in the early years of education. Policy experts can play a pivotal role by advocating for regulations that discourage or prohibit ability grouping, emphasizing that research consistently shows its ineffectiveness and potential harm. Promoting inclusive classrooms is another vital aspect of fostering equitable education. Encouraging classrooms where students with diverse abilities and backgrounds learn together not only enhances learning outcomes but also contributes to a more inclusive society. To support this, policies should be developed to incentivize schools to adopt inclusive practices, which might include providing additional funding or resources for inclusive education. Investing in teacher training and professional development programmes is imperative. Educators should be equipped with the knowledge and skills necessary for inclusive teaching strategies, differentiated instruction, and fostering a growth mindset among their students. To facilitate this, allocating funding for teacher training initiatives and providing incentives for educators to participate in these programmes is crucial.

Cultivating a growth mindset culture within schools is equally essential. This can be achieved through the implementation of school-wide initiatives that encourage students and educators to embrace effort, persistence, and resilience as fundamental components of the learning process. Policies should support these efforts by promoting research and evidence-based programmes that foster a growth mindset culture in schools. A diverse and inclusive curriculum is a powerful tool for promoting equity in education. Developing and implementing curricula that reflect diverse perspectives and experiences makes learning more engaging and relevant for all students. To ensure the success of this approach, advocating for inclusive curriculum standards and resources that encompass various cultures and backgrounds is essential. Equitable distribution of resources is fundamental to providing all students with an equal opportunity to succeed. This includes ensuring that technology, textbooks, and well-qualified teachers are available in all schools and classrooms. Policies should focus on establishing funding formulas that prioritize the equitable distribution of resources based on student needs and school demographics. Data-driven decision-making can play a pivotal role in addressing disparities in education. Encouraging schools to collect and analyse data on student performance, disparities, and the impact of pedagogical strategies can lead to more informed decision-making. Supporting policies should promote transparency and accountability by requiring schools to report and address disparities in achievement and opportunities.

Community engagement is a vital aspect of building an inclusive and equitable educational environment. Involving parents, caregivers, and the community in discussions about educational practices ensures that diverse perspectives are considered. Policies should be designed to encourage community engagement and foster partnerships between schools and their communities. Evaluating the effectiveness of inclusive and equitable practices in schools is essential. Implementing evaluation mechanisms that assess the impact of these practices helps ensure that progress is being made. Policies should reinforce accountability by creating measures that reward schools and districts for achieving equitable outcomes and penalize those perpetuating disparities. Lastly, decisions in education should be based on rigorous research and evidence. Encouraging educators and policymakers to rely on evidence-based practices is crucial for achieving meaningful progress. Allocating resources for educational research and ensuring that policies are well-informed by research findings can drive positive change in the education system. Implementing these recommendations will undoubtedly be a collective effort, requiring cooperation from educators, policymakers, and communities. However, these suggestions offer practical and powerful ways to challenge deeply ingrained beliefs, promote equity, and create inclusive learning environments that support the growth and development of all students.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analysed in this study.

Additional information

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Notes on contributors

Ashraf Alam

Ashraf Alam is a Ph.D. Scholar at IIT Kharagpur. He holds a master’s degree in education and a bachelor’s degree in computer science and engineering from the University of Delhi. Over the course of Ashraf’s academic journey, his research and teaching interest has inclined towards the philosophy and sociology of education, and in areas of research ethics, educational psychology, and educational technology. He works at the crossroads of research and action for sustainable development, focusing on policies that impact the vulnerable. Currently, he is researching the different facets of ‘Positive Education’ at the Rekhi Centre of Excellence for the Science of Happiness at IIT Kharagpur under the esteemed guidance and patronage of Prof. Atasi Mohanty.

Atasi Mohanty

Atasi Mohanty, PhD, is an Assistant Professor at the Rekhi Centre of Excellence for the Science of Happiness, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, India. Her research interests include positive youth development, social psychology, youth mental health, science of happiness, prosocial behavior, happiness at the workplace, sustainable health and wellbeing, positive psychology, organizational behavior, Indian psychology, and sustainable entrepreneurship. She is currently guiding 14 Ph.D. research scholars.