This paper examines how ability grouping policies are enacted in everyday English as a Second Language (ESL) classroom practice, with a particular focus on teachers’ instructional decision-making, professional agency, and ethical reasoning. While ability grouping and mixed-ability instruction have been extensively debated in terms of student outcomes, much of this research has focused on system-level effects or achievement data. Comparatively little attention has been paid to how teachers experience, interpret, and negotiate grouping structures in their day-to-day pedagogical work. This gap is especially significant in linguistically diverse and high-stakes educational contexts, where language education functions as a key mechanism of selection and access. The present study addresses this gap by foregrounding teachers as central actors in the enactment of grouping policy.

The study is guided by the following research question: How do different grouping structures (ability grouping and mixed-ability instruction) shape ESL teachers’ instructional decision-making, professional agency, and ethical reasoning in junior high school classrooms? Rather than evaluating grouping models in terms of effectiveness or attainment, the study adopts a qualitative, teacher-centered perspective to explore how grouping policies are lived and negotiated at the classroom level. It examines how teachers adapt differentiation practices, how they perceive the social and emotional implications of grouping for students, and how grouping arrangements influence their sense of professional autonomy, responsibility, and workload.

The theoretical framework integrates perspectives from the sociology of education, sociocultural theories of language learning, and research on teacher agency and policy enactment. At the structural level, the study draws on sociological research that conceptualizes ability grouping and tracking as mechanisms of educational stratification. From this perspective, grouping is understood not merely as a pedagogical strategy, but as a policy instrument that structures access to curriculum, expectations, and educational trajectories. Comparative research across European education systems has shown that early grouping arrangements often reproduce social, linguistic, and socioeconomic inequalities, particularly in subjects such as language education that function as gatekeepers to further educational opportunities. This lens situates ESL grouping within broader European debates on equity, inclusion, and institutional differentiation.

At the pedagogical level, the study is informed by sociocultural theories of language learning, which conceptualize learning as socially mediated and interaction-driven. Language development is understood as emerging through participation in meaningful communicative practices, peer interaction, and access to diverse linguistic resources. These perspectives have strongly influenced European approaches to inclusive and heterogeneous language classrooms. At the same time, they highlight the pedagogical tensions teachers face when attempting to sustain inclusive participation while maintaining appropriate levels of cognitive and linguistic challenge for learners with diverse profiles.

Finally, the study draws on scholarship on teacher agency and policy enactment, which conceptualizes teachers as active interpreters and mediators of educational policy rather than passive implementers. Teacher agency is understood as relational and structurally conditioned, shaped by institutional arrangements, accountability regimes, and professional cultures. This perspective is particularly relevant in European contexts where teachers are increasingly expected to reconcile inclusive policy discourses with performance-oriented assessment systems. By foregrounding teachers’ ethical reasoning and professional judgment, the study illuminates how grouping policies redistribute pedagogical responsibility and emotional labor across different instructional models.

Although empirically situated in Israeli junior high schools, the study is analytically framed as a critical comparative case. The Israeli context shares key characteristics with many European systems, including early ability grouping, high-stakes language assessment, and increasing linguistic and cultural diversity. By examining teachers’ lived experiences across contrasting grouping structures, the study offers conceptually transferable insights into how grouping policies shape classroom practice, teacher agency, and educational equity, contributing directly to European and international discussions central to ECER.

This study adopts a qualitative, interpretivist comparative case study design to examine how ESL teachers experience and enact ability grouping and mixed-ability instructional models in junior high school contexts. A qualitative approach was selected to capture teachers’ professional reasoning, ethical deliberations, and situated decision-making processes, which are not readily accessible through outcome-oriented methodologies. The research focuses on two state junior high schools operating under contrasting organizational arrangements: one implementing between-class ability grouping in English and one adopting a mixed-ability instructional model. The cases were selected through purposive sampling to enable analytical comparison within broadly similar institutional and socioeconomic conditions. Rather than evaluating the effectiveness of grouping models, the study explores how different structural arrangements shape teachers’ pedagogical practices, sense of agency, and perceptions of equity in everyday classroom life. The design is informed by comparative education research that emphasizes contextualized, practice-based analysis over causal inference, allowing grouping to be examined as a lived policy phenomenon rather than a technical intervention. Data were generated through semi-structured interviews with ten ESL teachers, five from each school, all with a minimum of four years’ experience teaching English at the junior high level and direct involvement in differentiation and instructional planning. Interviews lasted 45–60 minutes and were conducted in English. Prompts addressed experiences with grouping structures, approaches to differentiation, perceptions of student engagement and identity, and ethical or emotional dilemmas arising from grouping decisions. To enhance analytic credibility, the study also incorporated a targeted analysis of instructional artefacts, including core textbooks and representative classroom worksheets used in routine practice. These materials were selected in consultation with teachers and examined for linguistic and cognitive demand, scaffolding, and opportunities for extended language use. Data analysis followed Braun and Clarke’s thematic analysis framework, combining inductive coding with theoretically informed interpretation. Interview transcripts formed the primary analytic corpus, while artefacts were used to contextualize and corroborate teacher accounts. Ethical approval was obtained from relevant institutional bodies, all participants provided informed consent, and pseudonyms were used to ensure confidentiality. The design supports analytic generalization and offers conceptually transferable insights relevant to European debates on inclusion, tracking, and teacher professionalism.

The study suggests that neither ability grouping nor mixed-ability instruction functions as an inherently equitable or pedagogically optimal solution in ESL classrooms. Instead, each grouping structure shapes instructional practice, teacher agency, and student experience in distinct and often contradictory ways. Ability grouping is associated with clearer instructional focus and curricular alignment, supporting lesson planning and classroom manageability, while simultaneously constraining flexibility, limiting peer interaction, and reinforcing fixed academic identities for students placed in lower tracks. Mixed-ability instruction, by contrast, appears to foster inclusion, social integration, and collaborative learning, yet places substantial cognitive, emotional, and organizational demands on teachers, particularly in sustaining appropriate levels of challenge for diverse learners. Across both contexts, teachers emerge as central mediators of grouping policy rather than passive implementers. They exercise professional judgment to navigate tensions between differentiation, equity, and institutional accountability, often developing pragmatic strategies such as flexible grouping, adaptive task design, and differentiated use of materials. These strategies mitigate some of the limitations of each grouping model but do not eliminate the structural constraints embedded in grouping systems. Overall, the findings shift the focus of the grouping debate from questions of effectiveness toward issues of enactment, teacher agency, and ethical responsibility. By foregrounding teachers’ lived experiences, the study contributes qualitative insight into how grouping policies are realized in practice and underscores the need for systemic conditions that support sustainable, equity-oriented language education. These conclusions speak directly to European debates on tracking, inclusion, and teacher professionalism.

Boaler, J. (2003). Setting, social class and survival of the quickest. In A. Bishop (Ed.), Mathematics education (pp. 205-228). Routledge.‏ Boaler, J. (2008). Promoting ‘relational equity’ and high mathematics achievement through an innovative mixed‐ability approach. British Educational Research Journal, 34(2), 167-194.‏ http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01411920701532145 Callahan, R. M. (2005). Tracking and high school English learners: Limiting opportunity to learn. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 305-328.‏ https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.3102/00028312042002305 Cohen, Z. A., Lefstein, A., & Author 2, Y. (2022). ‘He doesn’t deserve to be in the higher track’: Teachers’ justifications in student tracking discussions. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 43(4), 543-555.‏ http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2020.1858759 Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach. Sage.‏ https://www.ucg.ac.me/skladiste/blog_609332/objava_105202/fajlovi/Creswell.pdf Erling, E. J., Foltz, A., Siwik, F., & Brummer, M. (2022). Teaching English to linguistically diverse students from migration backgrounds: From deficit perspectives to pockets of possibility. Languages, 7(3), 186.‏ http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/languages7030186 Feniger 2, Y., Bar-Haim, E., & Blank, C. (2021). From social origin to selective high school courses: Ability grouping as a mechanism of securing social advantage in Israeli secondary education. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 76(1), 100627.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rssm.2021.100627 Feniger, Y., Mcdossi, O., & Ayalon, H. (2015). Ethno-religious differences in Israeli higher education: Vertical and horizontal dimensions. European Sociological Review, 31(4), 383-396.‏ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcu092 Francis, B., Connolly, P., Archer, L., Hodgen, J., Mazenod, A., Pepper, D., Sloan, S., Taylor, B., Tereshchenko, A., & Travers, M.-C. (2017). Attainment grouping as self-fulfilling prophesy? A mixed methods exploration of self-confidence and set level among year 7 students. International Journal of Educational Research, 86, 96-108.‏ http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2017.09.001 Francis, B., Taylor, B., & Tereshchenko, A. (2019). Reassessing 'ability' grouping: Improving practice for equity and attainment. Routledge.‏ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336322183_Reassessing_'Ability'_Grouping_Improving_Practice_for_Equity_and_Attainment Marsh, H. W. (1987). The Big-Fish–Little-Pond Effect on academic self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(3), 280–295. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.79.3.280 Slavin, R. E. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 57(3), 293-336.‏ https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.2307/1170460 Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97-114). Oxford University Press. Taylor, B., Hodgen, J., Tereshchenko, A., & Gutiérrez, G. (2022). Attainment grouping in English secondary schools: A national survey of current practices. Research Papers in Education, 37(2), 199-220.‏ http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2020.1836517