Executive Summary

Purpose and context

New Zealand’s education system aims to deliver equitable and excellent outcomes for all learners. Tātai Aho Rau was contracted to provide the Ministry of Education with a rapid review of literature about grouping practices that contribute to equitable and inclusive outcomes for all ākonga, as well as providing examples to illustrate these practices.

The specific purpose of this report is to inform the contributor teams for the CPM for literacy & communication and maths. The CPM work programme is situated in Te Mātaiaho and delivery of Te Whāriki: Early Childhood Curriculum. As further background to the report, the Ministry of Education also committed to contributing to ending the practice of streaming learners as part of Kōkirihia: The plan for removing streaming from our schools (Tokona te Raki Māori Futures Collective, March 2023). The Ministry specifically identified the refresh of The New Zealand Curriculum (NZC) and the development of the CPM as work that would help teachers to ensure their grouping practices contributed to equitable outcomes.

Methodology

Given the short timeframe for delivery of this report, Tātai Aho Rau selected a ‘rapid review’ methodology to identify relevant literature about the nature of grouping practices that have evidence of their positive impact on achievement and social and emotional wellbeing for all ākonga. The research team used a ‘snowball method’ to identify and interview 22 practitioners who are implementing alternative grouping practices in the wake of their decision to move away from streaming¹ in their learning setting. Vignettes of their grouping practices were then created to inform the findings of the review.

Use of grouping practices in Aotearoa New Zealand

There are few sources that measure how kaiako utilise the many forms of grouping across educational sectors in Aotearoa New Zealand, and much less about forms that can be described as grouping for supporting equitable outcomes. Data from PISA 2018 results across OECD countries revealed that at least 80% of students in New Zealand were enrolled in schools that implemented ‘ability based’ grouping, surpassing the OECD average of 54% (OECD, 2020). More recent data from the National Monitoring Study of Student Achievement (NMSSA, 2022) stated that 49% of teachers at Year 4 and 40% at Year 8 reported that they used ability group activities ‘every day or almost every day’.

Terms and forms of streaming

The review identified that there are overlaps and a mix of ideas when researchers and practitioners refer to a single term that defines their grouping practice. Increasingly, researchers are critical of the use of ‘ability’ grouping because they have found that bias and assumptions are inherent in educators' beliefs about students' 'ability'. There are notions of fixed ability associated with terms such as ‘ability grouping’. Increasingly, this descriptor is being contested and new descriptors are emerging.

The design group that developed Kōkirihia (Tokona te Raki, March 2023) concluded that:

... streaming is the term we use in Aotearoa New Zealand to cover fixed ability grouping, banding, and the inflexible use of prerequisites in education - all practices whereby students are sorted into different classes or placed into in-class ability groups for sustained periods of time based on teacher perception of ability and assessment data (p.14).

The harms caused as a result of fixed ability grouping

The harm that is caused by fixed ability grouping is an important rationale for shifting to new forms of grouping as part of the CPM and any support materials for Te Mātaiaho.

There is a large body of evidence that fixed ability grouping and streaming practices limit the opportunities, aspirations, expectations and subsequently learning outcomes of learners allocated to middle and lower ability groups (p. 2. Ministry of Education, 2021).

The harmful effects of streaming and ability grouping include reduced self-esteem in students, limited access to a rich curriculum, stigmatisation of students, decreased motivation, reduced fluidity and mobility, and reinforcement of social inequalities (Hamilton et al., 2011; Zubair et al., 2023).

Mindsets and beliefs that underpin grouping practices

Given the evidence about widespread use of ability grouping in our system (OECD, 2020; NMSSA, 2022), it is important to explore the mindsets, narratives, beliefs, assumptions, and principles that have driven these practices. It is a contested space, with opposing beliefs about learning and learners.

For example, there are those who believe that ability is fixed, while more recent research indicates that ability is multi-dimensional, contextual and can be developed. Similarly, some educators believe that learners who are perceived as ‘low ability’ need to practise basic skills in order to progress. This contrasts with research evidence that learners make large learning gains when their teachers hold high expectations for all learners (Rubie-Davies et al., 2015).

There is also a growing body of evidence about teachers’ bias when selecting learners for ability grouping. Aside from test data, behaviour, gender, disability, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and second language learners have been identified as sorting criteria for within-class or between-class grouping.

Grouping practices that contribute to inclusive and equitable outcomes

The research literature and vignettes about grouping practices were wide-ranging, describing:

1. Access and flexibility; how groups are formed and changed
2. Design for learning; how groups operate (the tasks, roles, supports and challenges)
3. Narratives of identity, belonging, and high expectations.

Both sets of data were analysed and sorted into broad themes from which seven defining characteristics of grouping for equitable and inclusive outcomes emerged. These characteristics are interdependent and offer more clarity and direction for kaiako than one descriptor.

The seven characteristics describe grouping from the perspective of ākonga, whereby they are able to: access the full richness of the curriculum; regularly flex and mix who they learn and collaborate with; experience inclusive and interdependent task design with roles, supports and challenges; have agency, choices and voice over how they work as collaborators; have opportunities to critically reflect on their contributions and outcomes; operate in an environment where their cultural identity is acknowledged, strengthened and represented; hear the language of and experience high expectation teaching.

Recommendations

It is important that the system does no harm. We recommend that:

1. The word ‘ability’ is removed from any descriptions of grouping practices within the CPM so that a new narrative, that aligns with equity and inclusion in our education system, can emerge for ākonga and kaiako.
2. The seven interdependent characteristics of grouping design underpin all parts of Te Mātaiaho where grouping is being designed by kaiako (with their ākonga) to support learning. They are not a recipe for one way of grouping or just associated with literacy & communication and maths.
3. Advice for kaiako about teaching literacy & communication and maths and the use of levelled readers is explicit about approaches to grouping that reflect the characteristics and the evidence that underpins them.
4. Further research is undertaken to better understand grouping practices in relation to their contribution to the acceleration and progress of learners.