Between-class ability grouping, which is the practice of lumping children together in separate classes according to their talents and ability level, is ineffective according to many research studies. Research findings claim that, "although ability grouping may have slight benefits for students who are assigned to high track classes, these benefits are balanced by losses for students who are assigned to low-tracked classes. Putting students into low-tracked classes is damaging for a few reasons. First, these students are not or are only exposed to a few positive role models. Also, many teachers do not enjoy teaching low tracked classes and have low expectations of their students. Research has also found that lower track classes' quality of instruction is lower than that of middle or high tracked classes. Tracking therefore unfairly creates unequal opportunities for academic achievement. One of the most harmful effects of tracking is the label a student in a low track is given. Opponents of tracking fear that the labels students are given early on stay with them as they move from grade to grade. It has a stigmatizing effect on those students and reduces their self-esteem. Research shows that tracking is ineffective, however, schools continue to use this practice. Why would schools continue to use tracking if it is obviously harmful and ineffective? Tracking proponents claim that it is easier to teach relatively homogeneous classes. They also claim, that it is unrealistic to expect everyone to master the same curriculum. They say that students are more comfortable and learn better when they are tracked. They also claim that tracking lets teachers adapt instruction according to the students' needs. Also, tracking seems to be beneficial for high tracked students and why would parents or teachers want gifted and high achieving students to be slowed down (as they perceive it) in order to accommodate low tracked students? These are the reas...
