Research into grouping by achievement, by academics from
Queen’s University Belfast and University College London, has found that nearly
a third of students in England were allocated to higher or lower maths sets
than their previous test performance implied.
The study, published in the British Educational Research Journal, analysed data from 9,301 Year 7 students at 46 secondary schools in England. The researchers compared which maths set the students would have been put in – based on Key Stage 2 maths test scores – with the sets they were actually placed in. Overall, they found that 31.1% of students were misallocated – placed in sets that were either higher or lower than their results at the end of primary school would have indicated.
Boys were slightly more likely to be misallocated to higher
sets in maths (16.7%) than lower sets (13.0%), whereas girls were more likely
to be misallocated to lower sets (17.9%) than higher sets (14.7%). Other
findings showed that:
- Black students were 2.4 times more likely than
white students to be misallocated to a lower maths set.
- Asian students were 1.7 times more likely than white
students to be misallocated to a lower maths set.
- Female students were 1.53 times more likely than
males to be misallocated to a lower maths set.
- White students were 2.09 times more likely than
black students to be misallocated to a higher maths set.
- White students were 1.72 times more likely than
Asian students to be misallocated to a higher maths set.
- Male students were 1.32 times more likely than females to be misallocated to a higher maths set.
Source: The misallocation of students to academic sets in maths: A study of secondary schools in England (June 2019) British Educational Research Journal
The Education Endowment Foundation has published an evaluation of two trials of programmes developed by the University College-London (UCL) Institute of Education investigating approaches to grouping pupils: Best Practice in Setting and Best Practice in Mixed Attainment Grouping.
The main trial, “Best Practice in Setting”, tested an intervention that aimed to get schools to improve their setting practice (grouping pupils in classes by their current achievement levels). A total of 127 schools took part in the trial, which ran over the course of two academic years. Teachers were randomly allocated to sets to prevent “lower” sets from being disproportionately assigned less-experienced teachers, while pupils in Years 7 and 8 were assigned to sets based on independent measures of achievement, rather than more subjective judgements such as behaviour and peer interactions. There were opportunities throughout the year to re-assign pupils to different sets based on their current level of achievement.
The evaluation found no evidence that the intervention improves outcomes in maths (effect size = -0.01) or English (effect size = -0.08). The process evaluation revealed mixed views from participants, and many interviewees thought that what they were being asked to do represented little change from what they already do.
The researchers noted that because school and teacher buy-in was low and attrition rates for follow-up testing were high, half of the schools in the math trial and more than half of the schools in the English trial stopped the intervention before follow-up, and this makes it difficult to conclude anything certain about the impact of Best Practice in Setting.
Source: Best practice in grouping students. Intervention A: Best practice in setting evaluation report and executive summary, (September 2018). Education Endowment Foundation
Best practice in grouping students. Intervention B: Mixed attainment grouping. Pilot report and executive summary, (September 2018). Education Endowment Foundation
Researchers Saiying Steenbergen-Hu and colleagues recently analysed the results of almost 100 years of research on the effects of ability grouping (which places pupils of similar skills and abilities in the same classes) and acceleration (where pupils are given material and assignments that are usually reserved for older year groups) on pupils’ academic achievement. After screening thousands of studies, their secondary meta-analysis, recently published in Review of Educational Research, synthesised the results of thirteen earlier meta-analyses on ability grouping and six on acceleration that met inclusion criteria for the final review.
They divided ability grouping into four types: (1) between-class ability grouping, where pupils in the same year are divided into low-, medium-, or high-level classes; (2) within-class ability grouping, where pupils within a classroom are taught in groups based on their levels; (3) cross-year subject grouping, where pupils in different year groups are combined into the same class depending on their prior achievement; and (4) grouping for pupils considered gifted.
Results showed academic benefits of within-class grouping, cross-year grouping by subject, and grouping for the gifted, but no benefit of between-class grouping. Results were consistent regardless of whether pupils were high-, medium-, or low-achievers. Analyses of acceleration groups for pupils labelled as gifted showed that these pupils performed the same as older non-gifted pupils, and that being in accelerated classes had positive effects on these pupils’ grades.
Source: What one hundred years of research says about the effects of ability grouping and acceleration on K–12 students’ academic achievement: Findings of two second-order meta-analyses (December 2016), Review of Educational Research, Vol. 86, No. 4
A new article published in the Cambridge Journal of Education explores the divergence between research on ability grouping and the support for it. While policy makers have frequently advocated the practice and many parents support it, research has consistently failed to find significant benefits and has identified disadvantages for low-achieving pupil groups.
The authors analysed the extensive research that exists on ability grouping, and first identified seven different explanations for the poorer progress of pupils in low ability groups, even after controlling for their pretests. These are:
- Misallocation to groups;
- Lack of fluidity of groups;
- Lower quality of teaching for low groups;
- Low teacher expectations for low groups;
- Pedagogy, curriculum, and assessment applied to different groups;
- Pupil perception and experiences of “ability” grouping, and impact on their learner identities; and
- These different factors working together to cause a self-fulfilling prophecy.
In terms of the reason for the lack of impact of the research evidence on practice, the authors argue that segregation by ability has somehow become a signifier for “academic high standards”.
The article suggests that the only way to counter such a widely held view is by developing a similarly powerful alternative, particularly “scientific truth”. They hope that their project Best Practice in Grouping Students, funded by the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF), might help to shift opinions, given its experimental, large-scale design.
Source: Exploring the Relative Lack of Impact of Research on ‘Ability Grouping’ in England: A Discourse Analytic Account (2016), Cambridge Journal of Education.
A new article published in the Oxford Review of Education uses data from the Millennium Cohort Study (MCS) to explore the impact of streaming on Key Stage 1 (KS1) attainment at age seven. The authors found that children in the “top” stream achieved more and made significantly more academic progress than children attending schools that did not stream, while children in the “middle” or “bottom” streams achieved less and made significantly less academic progress. They conclude that streaming undermines the attempts of governments to raise attainment for all children whatever their socio-economic status.
The MCS is following the lives of around 19,000 children born in the UK in 2000/1. For this study, the authors focused on children in England as information on streaming (obtained from a teacher survey) could be linked to Foundations Stage Profile scores and KS1 results from the National Pupil Database. Complete data was available for 2,098 children. Of these, 446 were “streamed” children, from 307 different primary schools.
Although the relationship between streaming and KS1 reading was partly explained by other child characteristics, being in the “top” stream retained a significant positive association with all KS1 scores and being in the “middle” or “bottom” stream retained a significant negative association with KS1 reading and overall performance scores.
Source: The Impact of Streaming on Attainment at Age Seven: Evidence from the Millennium Cohort Study (2014), Oxford Review of Education.
Some studies have shown that children who are born at the end of the academic year (summer born children) tend to have lower educational attainment than children born at the start of the academic year. The differences might be because of the precise age when they take a test, because they started school at an earlier age, because they have had less schooling, or because they are the youngest in the class. A new report from the Institute for Fiscal Studies finds that it is the age at which children take the test that is the most important factor.
The authors suggest that UK national test scores could be adjusted to allow for this variation. However, this would not help to resolve other problems that summer born children may face, for example, they are more likely to engage in risky behaviour, such as underage smoking. Reassuringly, the authors point out that, in adulthood, many of the differences disappear, and summer born individuals are just as healthy, happy, and earn as much as their older peers.
On the same subject, a recent Centre for Longitudinal Studies working paper uses data from the Millennium Cohort Study to examine whether summer born pupils are differently represented in ability groups in early primary school. Across all types of ability grouping (within-year, within-class), the author found a pronounced and consistent tendency for relatively older pupils in a school year to be placed in the highest stream, set, or group.
Sources: When You Are Born Matters: Evidence for England (2013), Institute for Fiscal Studies, and In-school Ability Grouping and the Month of Birth Effect: Preliminary Evidence from the Millennium Cohort Study (2013), Centre for Longitudinal Studies.