“For almost a hundred years, ability grouping has remained one of the most controversial issues in American education. On the one extreme are those who view tracking as a means of maintaining the existing political status quo whereby students’ race, class and ethnicity determine the currency of one’s education. On the other, are those who believe that grouping maximizes the learning potential and contributes to the positive affective development of all students” (Ansalone, 2010, pg. 7).

I’ve read a lot about and have engaged in multiple discussions with educators regarding the topic of ability grouping, all of which have entailed various views and opinions. When I read across this passage, I had to stop and let it all sink in, pondering once again how I feel about grouping. I liked that Ansalone’s article debunks a lot of assumptions about ability grouping, but there’s a relevant piece missing that may have not been appropriate to mention in his article, but is worth mentioning here. In theory, I think grouping is brilliant, especially when you only take it at face value, e.g., “[it] maximizes the learning potential and contributes to the positive affective development of all students”. It would be easy to say, “Wow! This is great! Let’s start grouping students then!” It’s when you examine the potential consequences of grouping, the inevitable disadvantages that it poses on students, that you quickly understand that grouping can be used (and, unfortunately, is often used) as a means to determine the “currency” of a student’s education based on his or her race, class or ethnicity. I think this is the part that needs to be mentioned: it feels discouraging that something that could be used to really improve the learning environment for students and teachers alike (if used without any bias whatsoever), is commonly used on an institutional level to further disadvantage them; it’s manipulated for the benefit of someone other than the students themselves. The only assumption that Ansalone addresses that turns out to be true, is that teachers actually prefer teaching upper tracks (higher-performing students) “since they often define their status as teachers according to their track assignment” (pg. 13). And this is true! I have been in a department, and worked closely with another department, where there were multiple fights between teachers over who would teach the AP course versus the creative writing courses. Again, it’s worth mentioning that it’s just so discouraging that a concept created to better the learning environment for students, is so easily manipulated into a political move or ego booster for the adults responsible for providing free and equitable education for all students, regardless of their race, class or ethnicity.