JOURNAL ARTICLE CRITIQUE 1
Journal Critique: Disability Grouping and Tracking
School of Education, Liberty University
Critique: The Resurgence of Ability Grouping and Persistence of Tracking
Summary
Tom Loveless offers a data-driven look at how ability grouping and tracking have
returned or remained in the United States (and some global) education systems. Using data
from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), Loveless highlights a substantial
recent rise in within-class ability grouping at the elementary level, specifically in reading and
math. This, he believes, stands in stark contrast to the practice of tracking that persists in middle
and high schools — particularly around subjects such as math, where students are often placed
into different learning tracks based on perceived aptitude. Ability grouping is when teachers
group students who have similar skills within one classroom to differentiate instruction. Tracking
JOURNAL ARTICLE CRITIQUE 2
occurs when students are placed into separate classes or paths based on achievement, often
with profound consequences for the level of rigor a student will encounter.
While Loveless does not take a side on such uses of tracking, he points out that both have
continued even after years in which many educators assumed that tracking would be reduced or
eliminated through various reform efforts. His arguments are fronted by empirical trends—not
ideological beliefs—giving descriptive rather than prescriptive insight into how schools still sort
students by ability.
Analysis of Author’s Key Points
In his article, Tom Loveless describes a more nuanced and evidence-based consideration
of ability grouping and tracking in the U.S., considering cases where accountability-driven school
decision-making competes with habits formed by centuries of age-graded instruction. A key
asset in the article is its grounding in empirical evidence, on data from the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), showing the return use of ability grouping in
elementary schools. Over time, Loveless coauthors write, more teachers have been sorting
students by ability for instruction in reading and mathematics. The difference between ability
grouping and tracking, noted by Loveless, is crucial to the effects of each. Loveless also
highlights the historical and sociopolitical context of tracking, referring to studies suggesting its
link to race and class differences. One more subtle point in Loveless’s favor — an important one,
too — is his very neutral vocabulary. Instead of arguing for or against the merit of ability
grouping and tracking, he merely describes what arrangements in schools today are like. Finally,
Loveless's article opens the door to questions around both educational equity and
instructionally effective practice. Though he provides no answers, his analysis suggests some
lines of thought for educators and policymakers when considering the relationship between
grouping and tracking practices and what students are provided with in terms of quality
instruction.
JOURNAL ARTICLE CRITIQUE 3
Personal Response
As an Assistant Principal, I fully understand the effects of ability grouping and tracking on
student learning and school climate. Certainly, the following paragraph from Loveless's article
struck a chord with my experience, especially his point that ability grouping has been on the rise
in the early grades. At my school, this is accomplished using flexible grouping strategies through
differentiated instruction in the core subject areas, though I have some of the same concerns
about tracking in middle and high schools. Loveless stresses that students in lower tracks, for
instance, often have less challenging work and fewer options to move into higherlevel classes. I
concur with Loveless's point that we need to separate between grouping and tracking, but both
practices should be managed carefully so as not to limit students who have the potential. This
article was informative and engaging, and underscores trends that often get overlooked in
educational conversations.
Critique 2: Academic Tracking for English Learners With Disabilities in Middle School
Summary
This article argues that middle school tracking practices lead to limiting systemic
marginalization of English learners (ELs) with disabilities from academic opportunity. The
authors use a qualitative embedded case study of ten ELs with disabilities to demonstrate how
these students inevitably are categorized in lower academic tracks, regardless of their individual
striving and academic achievement. Three related issues are further identified: the overreliance
on high-stakes assessment scores, the architecture of inclusive classrooms, and deficiency
models in perceptions of student abilities. Kangas and Cook argue that this is because all these
factors run on a deficit thinking approach, where students are often seen as the problem with
their education rather than institutions. They suggest that ableist and monolingual norms
undergird educators' beliefs about ELs with disabilities, which in turn influence the settings into
which these students are assigned — settings that may restrict access to full content or rich
JOURNAL ARTICLE CRITIQUE 4
learning opportunities. The article concludes by advocating for changes in placement criteria
and the work services to guarantee equitable educational opportunities for these high-risk
student groups.
Analysis of Author’s Key Points
Kangas and Cook make the compelling case, backed up by their exhaustive evidence, that
ELs with disabilities are consistently tracked into lower academic tracks because of institutional
practices and deficit-oriented assumptions. The article is especially well done in its application
of qualitative data — including classroom observations, interviews with teachers and students,
and school records — to demonstrate how tracking decisions are implemented and maintained.
A key takeaway from this article was the strong emphasis on high-stakes scores, especially in
math, to guide track placement. Additionally, scholars say that inclusionary classrooms,
designed to help students with disabilities, have turned into lower tracks by default. It also
emphasizes how deficit thinking underlies the beliefs and decisions of educators. In general, the
main ideas of the authors are evidence-based and supported by a solid theoretical framework.
Their analysis shows the intersection of structural and ideological factors that constrict the
educational experiences of
ELs with disabilities.
Personal Response
Kangas and Cook's article alarmed and enlightened me. The researchers cite a reality I
see daily in my school — dually classified EL-SWDs experience not merely linearly additive
obstacles to academic achievement. I especially agree with the critique of the authors that test
scores are given excessive weight. Within a fast 14 months, I would be undereducated because
meaningful placement decisions at my school are frequently made based on these scores, which
do an incomplete job of reflecting a student's capacity. The point about inclusionary classrooms
resonated, too. These settings are established to help students with disabilities, but they often
unintentionally turn into low-expectation and low-rigor environments. In reading this article, I
JOURNAL ARTICLE CRITIQUE 5
am led to consider our own school's tracking and placement practices. It is a reminder that the
answer may be far more systemic — that we need to look for it using broader lenses and ask our
questions more expansively. Kangas and Cook provide a strong clarion call for action. It forces
educators and administrators to look with a critical eye at the institutional structures and beliefs
that control student outcomes.
References
Kangas, S. E. N., & Cook, M. (2020). Academic tracking of English learners with disabilities in
middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 57(6), 2415–2449.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831220915702
Loveless, T. (2013, March 18). The resurgence of ability grouping and persistence of tracking.
Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-resurgence-of-
abilitygrouping-and-persistence-of-tracking/
