A class list shouldn’t define a student’s potential
A class list can organise students, but it shouldn't define them.
That's the message from CQUniversity Head of Educational Neuroscience Professor Ken Purnell, following renewed debate about grouping school students according to academic ability.
Professor Purnell said the real issue isn't where students are placed, but what they come to believe about themselves once they're there.
The debate has been reignited by new UK research suggesting higher-achieving students can make modest gains when taught in classes grouped by ability – a practice commonly known as "streaming".
Streaming refers to the practice of placing students into different classes or groups based on their perceived academic achievement or ability in a subject.
Students considered high-performing may be placed together, while those needing additional support are taught separately.
Professor Purnell said the research offers important insights but should not be interpreted as a simple endorsement of streaming.
"Whenever we talk about streaming, there's a temptation to frame it as either good or bad. The evidence is much more nuanced than that," Professor Purnell said.
"The recent research suggests some higher-achieving students may benefit from learning alongside similarly capable peers, particularly in mathematics.
“But that doesn't automatically mean streaming is the best solution for every school or every student."
Professor Purnell said decades of educational research consistently point to teaching quality as the most significant factor influencing student achievement.
"The grouping arrangement matters far less than the quality of instruction students receive once they're in the classroom," he said.
"If teachers are equipped to provide appropriate challenge, support and feedback, students can thrive in a range of learning environments."
As an educational neuroscientist, Professor Purnell is particularly interested in how students' beliefs about their own abilities influence learning outcomes.
"One of the risks of streaming is that it can unintentionally become a label," he said.
"The danger comes when a stream stops being a teaching strategy and starts becoming an identity.
"If a student begins to think, 'I'm in the bottom class, therefore I'm not good at maths,' that belief can become a barrier to achievement."
"Research consistently shows that students are influenced by the expectations around them. They often rise – or fall – to the expectations they perceive from teachers, parents and even themselves."
Professor Purnell said this is where neuroscience offers an important perspective.
"The human brain remains remarkably adaptable throughout childhood and adolescence. Ability is not fixed at age 12, or at any other age for that matter," he said.
"We know the brain changes in response to challenge, practice and feedback. That's why it's so important that schools avoid sending messages that suggest a student's potential has already been determined."
He compares academic development to sport.
"Talented athletes often improve when they train and compete alongside stronger athletes because they're challenged to lift their performance," Professor Purnell said.
"Some students may experience similar benefits when they're learning with high-achieving peers. But unlike sport, education isn't just about performance today; it's also about maintaining confidence, motivation and a belief in future growth.
"The question isn't whether students should or shouldn't be streamed," Professor Purnell said.
"The real question is whether every student is being challenged, supported and encouraged to believe they can improve. That's what the evidence tells us matters most."
