GROUPING BY ABILITY -EVIDENCE MIXED

GROUPING BY ABILITY -EVIDENCE MIXED

Does it help the equity agenda? Look at international practice.

Comment

Grouping by ability means that pupils with similar attainment levels are grouped together either for specific lessons on a regular basis (setting or regrouping) or as a class (streaming or tracking). The assumption is that it will be possible to teach more effectively or more efficiently with a narrower range of attainment in a class.

The Education Endowment Foundation ,which has reviewed evidence on grouping by ability, found that while there is some evidence that there can be benefits for high attaining pupils these benefits are outweighed by  the direct and indirect negative effects  for mid range and lower performing pupils, with low attaining learners falling behind on average  by  one or two months a year compared to progress in their  class without segregation .The EEF also found  ‘research shows a clear longer term negative effect on the attitude and engagement of low attaining and disadvantaged pupils’.However, and this is important,  the exception  is the impact that separate teaching can have on gifted and talented pupils ‘who benefit from a range of different kinds of   ability grouping’

Jo Boaler, a  Professor of Mathematics at Stanford University  in her paper  ‘The ‘Psychological Prisons’ from which they never escaped: The role of ability grouping in reproducing social class inequalities’ (2005)asserted that the ability grouping policies that the last Labour government had  encouraged  in schools would not be entertained in most other countries in the world and goes some way to explaining the inequities in the UK system.  She writes ‘England strides forward, encouraging extensive ability grouping practices at the youngest possible age. It is only the rarest and bravest of teachers who have managed to resist the pressures to group by ‘ability’ from the current Labour government, thereby maintaining a vision of schooling that promotes equity and high attainment for all.   ‘ In Sweden ability grouping is illegal because it is known to produce inequities. In the US parents have brought law-suits against school districts that have denied high level curricula to students at high school age; the idea that such selectivity in ‘opportunity to learn’ (Porter, 1994) could happen at elementary school is inconceivable for most Americans.   In Japan (Yiu, 2001) students are believed to have equal potential and the aim of schools is to encourage students to attain at equally high levels. Japanese educators are bemused by the Western goal of sorting students into high and low ‘abilities’.

Boaler suggests that one of the most important goals of schools is to provide stimulating environments for all children; environments in which children’s interest can be peaked and nurtured, with teachers who are ready to recognize, cultivate and develop the potential that children show at different times and in different areas. It is difficult to support a child’s development and nurture their potential if they are placed into a low group at a very early age, told that they are achieving at lower levels than others, given less challenging and interesting work, taught by less qualified and experienced teachers, and separated from peers who would stimulate their thinking. Yet the predictability of performance in English schools seems not to trouble policy makers who support early and extensive ability grouping (Carvel, 1996). This is one of the reasons that the UK scores at the bottom of the scale on PISA’s measures of equality (OECD, 2000; Green, 2003) she claims. It is an interesting point. How many children are identified early on as weak in a particular subject and placed in a low ability grouping normally with the worst teacher, and stay there, so reinforcing their sense of underachievement and failure? Quite a few I would suggest.  Large scale analyses of school effectiveness, conducted with international datasets, such as PISA and SIMS, conclude that ‘schools that group students the latest and the least have the highest outcomes.’ Research on ability grouping has persistently shown high correlations between social class and setting (Ball, 1981, Boaler, 1997a), with social class working as a subtle filter that results in the over-representation of working class children in low groups.

Boaler conducted a longitudinal study of two schools, one of which set by ability early on, the other had mixed ability classes and then set by ability just before exams. Cohorts of students in the two schools, who were similar in terms of social class and prior attainment, were monitored for three years (Boaler, 1997a, 2002).. The one that left setting to the last moment had much better results. Indeed, many of the students in the setting school reported that they gave up on their learning when they were placed into any set from 2 downwards.  Boaler was particularly worried about how keen the Governments was to introduce ability grouping in Primary schools.  Her conclusion was that  if the Government ( then Labour) cares about promoting ‘social justice’ then an important part of their agenda for the future must be to learn about equitable and effective grouping policies that promote high achievement for all and reduce rather than reproduce social inequalities.

This is all very interesting given how strongly some educationalists and politicians feel about the positive impact of setting.One experienced teacher, and consultant, Joe Nutt,  commenting on this issue and the Boaler research wrote  ”Taking primary education out of the equation, then any research on setting which doesn’t show an acute awareness of its relevance in different subject disciplines through its design, isn’t worth a great deal. I’d argue that setting in those subjects where knowledge gain is heavily sequential, is almost a necessity. The risk of under-performance works at both ends of the scale and is equally costly’

Politicians shouldn’t be telling schools whether they should set by ability or not, that is called micro-management from the centre and self-evidently undermines school autonomy. It is precisely the kind of decision that should be left to schools themselves, informed by evidence of what works best in practice, in particular contexts.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “GROUPING BY ABILITY -EVIDENCE MIXED

  1. Taking primary education out of the equation, then any research on setting which doesn’t show an acute awareness of its relevance in different subject disciplines through its design, isn’t worth a great deal. I’d argue that setting in those subjects where knowledge gain is heavily sequential, is almost a necessity. The risk of under-performance works at both ends of the scale and is equally costly. I guess it all boils down to your appetite for what John Stuart Mill once called, “collective mediocrity.”

    I’m also hardened enough to shy right away from any educational researcher who shows such a lack of awareness, as to title their research: ‘The ‘Psychological Prisons’ from which they never escaped: The role of ability grouping in reproducing social class inequalities’ (Not much doubt about which flagpole the author of that one has nailed their colours to!)

  2. Long experience lead me to think that in MFL, setting advantages able students considerably and may depress middle ability children to a small degree. Just a gut feeling.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s