Group with Purpose: Ensuring Equity and High Expectations in the Classroom

The Early Career Framework states that teachers should learn how to... Group pupils effectively, by applying high expectations to all groups, and ensuring all pupils have access to a rich curriculum.

Grouping pupils is a fundamental part of classroom management and lesson design. From seating plans and table arrangements to targeted support and collaborative tasks, the way teachers organise learners can have a profound impact on achievement, behaviour, and motivation. Yet, grouping is not just a logistical decision—it’s a pedagogical one. And when done without thought or purpose, it can lead to unintended inequality and lowered expectations.

To group pupils effectively, teachers must ensure that every pupil has access to a rich curriculum, regardless of background or prior attainment, and that high expectations are consistently applied across all groups. This approach promotes inclusion, maximises potential, and reflects a deep understanding of how learning happens.

The Dangers of Fixed Grouping

For decades, many schools have employed fixed ability groupings—sometimes known as “setting” or “streaming”—as a strategy to tailor teaching. However, research consistently shows that rigid grouping practices can harm disadvantaged learners and reinforce pre-existing inequalities (EEF, 2021).

The Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) reports that grouping pupils by attainment has a small positive impact overall but carries significant risks: lower sets often receive a less demanding curriculum, are taught by less experienced teachers, and suffer from reduced expectations. Pupils placed in lower groups may internalise negative beliefs about their ability, leading to decreased motivation and self-efficacy (Boaler, 2005).

Furthermore, these groupings often become self-fulfilling prophecies. Once placed in a low group, it becomes increasingly difficult for a pupil to “move up”—not because of their ability, but because of the opportunities (or lack thereof) they are given.

To group pupils effectively, teachers must challenge these assumptions and adopt a more fluid, inclusive, and responsive approach.

High Expectations for All

Carol Dweck’s work on growth mindset (2006) underscores the importance of teacher beliefs in shaping pupil outcomes. When teachers hold high expectations for all pupils, they communicate a belief in their ability to improve and succeed. Conversely, when expectations are unconsciously lowered—for example, by assigning simpler tasks to one group or providing less feedback—it sends a damaging message.

Grouping pupils effectively means ensuring that no group is considered “low” or “less able”. This requires:

• A shared learning objective for all: Even if scaffolding differs, all pupils should be working towards the same challenging outcome.

• Common access to rich content: No group should be given a “watered-down” version of the curriculum.

• Equal participation in discussion: All pupils should be expected and supported to contribute in whole-class and group tasks.

Tom Sherrington (2020) reminds us that “equity is not giving everyone the same, but ensuring everyone gets what they need to succeed.” High expectations mean believing that, with the right support, all pupils can achieve.

Access to a Rich Curriculum

Grouping decisions must never restrict access to broad and challenging content. Yet this remains a persistent issue, especially in subjects like English, science, and maths, where lower-attaining groups may be given simplified texts, fewer concepts, or less demanding problems to solve.

Mary Myatt (2020) argues for a “rich diet” of knowledge and vocabulary for all learners, especially those who are disadvantaged. She writes: “We do our pupils a disservice when we lower expectations or narrow the curriculum in the name of support.” In effective groupings, the richness of the curriculum remains constant; what changes is the scaffolding, modelling, and feedback provided to support access.

This means:

• Pupils reading the same high-quality texts, with support provided through vocabulary pre-teaching or guided reading.

• All pupils tackling complex problems or questions, but with appropriate tools (e.g. worked examples or structured prompts).

• Encouraging discussion, debate, and deeper thinking in every group—not just the “top” one.

Grouping should never be used as an excuse to offer less challenge. It should be a strategy for equity, not division.

Flexible Grouping for Responsive Teaching

Rather than relying on fixed ability groups, effective teachers use flexible grouping strategies. These are informed by formative assessment, pupil engagement, and task requirements, rather than assumptions about intelligence or potential.

Flexible grouping might include:

• Pairing pupils for peer tutoring, where one explains a concept to the other.

• Rotating group roles, so that all pupils experience leadership and collaboration.

• Groupings by interest, approach, or learning style, not just attainment.

• Responsive grouping mid-lesson, based on who has grasped a concept and who needs more input.

This kind of grouping allows teachers to respond to need in the moment, providing support or stretch where required, while avoiding the stigma of fixed labels. It also fosters a more collaborative, inclusive classroom culture.

As Rosenshine (2012) advocates, regular checks for understanding and guided practice allow teachers to adjust their instruction and support dynamically. Grouping is not a static decision—it is part of a wider, ongoing process of responsive teaching.

Practical Strategies for Effective Grouping

To ensure that grouping meets all pupils’ needs without reducing expectations or access, teachers can:

1. Use low-stakes formative assessment to inform groupings based on current understanding, not perceived ability.

2. Provide shared tasks with varied scaffolds rather than different tasks entirely.

3. Regularly rotate groupings to expose pupils to different perspectives and reduce fixed mindsets.

4. Use cold calling, targeted questioning and mini whiteboards to ensure participation across all groups.

5. Challenge every pupil, every day—whether through questioning, extension tasks, or feedback.

6. Avoid ability labels (“top group”, “bottom table”) and instead focus on the specific support or strategies being used.

These strategies ensure that grouping becomes a vehicle for inclusion and growth, not limitation or labelling.

Conclusion: Grouping as a Tool for Equity

Grouping pupils is not inherently good or bad—it’s how and why we group that matters. Effective grouping must be driven by inclusion, high expectations, and access to a rich curriculum for all. When we group with purpose, based on need not label, we can tailor support and challenge dynamically, without diluting content or limiting potential.

Rather than differentiating by “ability,” we must differentiate by support—providing scaffolds, tools, and encouragement that enable every learner to engage deeply with ambitious content. In doing so, we uphold our professional responsibility to create equitable, engaging, and empowering learning environments.

Grouping, done well, is not a burden—it is a powerful expression of our belief in the capacity of all pupils to grow and achieve.

References

• Boaler, J. (2005). The 'Psychological Prison' from which they never escaped: The role of ability grouping in reproducing social class inequalities. Forum, 47(2), 135–144.

• Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. Random House.

• Education Endowment Foundation (EEF). (2021). Grouping Students. Retrieved from https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk

• Myatt, M. (2020). Back on Track: Fewer Things, Deeper Learning. John Catt Educational.

• Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of Instruction. American Educator, 36(1), 12–19.

• Sherrington, T. (2020). Teaching Walkthrus: Five-Step Guides to Instructional Coaching. John Catt Educational.