Grouping students by 'ability' is a topic of long-standing contention in English education policy, research and practice. While policymakers have frequently advocated the practice as reflecting educational 'standards', research has consistently failed to find significant benefits of 'ability' grouping; and indeed has identified disadvantages for some (low attaining) pupil groups. However, this research evidence has apparently failed to impact practice in England. This article, contextualised by the authors' interests in education and social inequality, seeks to do two things. Firstly, it provides a brief analysis of the existing research evidence on the impact of 'ability' grouping, with particular reference to socioeconomic inequality; identifying seven different explanations for the poorer progress of pupils in low sets that emerge from the literature. Secondly, it applies Foucaultian 'analysis of discourse' to propose potential explanations for the apparent lack of traction of existing research with policy and practice, arguing that practices of 'ability grouping' reflect cultural investments in discourses of 'natural order' and hierarchy, with particular resonance for the discursive and political habitus of middle class parents.We postulate that investing in a powerful counter-discourse of enlightenment science, illustrated via our current randomised control trial of different approaches to pupil grouping, may offer a means to challenge hegemonic discourses that underpin current classroom practice.

Summative assessments that are integrated within the daily pedagogy of teachers are problematic. Some argue that they cannot both be helpful to pedagogy and yield results that are comparable across and between schools. Others claim that there is enough evidence to show that these targets can be achieved. The project described in this paper explored how teachers might enhance their competence in summative assessment in ways which might also have a positive effect on their teaching and learning. A strategy was developed based on five key features of summative assessment practices. The findings, from a longitudinal study with 18 teachers, are based on the teachers' opinions, both about the quality of the results which they achieved, and about the positive impacts on the involvement of pupils, on collaboration between teachers, and on interaction with parents. The project involved teachers of English and mathematics in three schools, working with the authors, over two-and-a-half years.

No abstract

No abstract