The incidence and make up of ability grouped sets in the UK primary school

Abstract

The adoption of setting in the primary school (pupils ability grouped across classes for particular subjects) emerged during the 1990s as a means to raise standards. Recent research based on 8875 children in the Millennium Cohort Study showed that 25.8% of children in Year 2 were set for literacy and mathematics and a further 11.2% of children were set for mathematics or literacy alone. Logistic regression analysis showed that the best predictors of being in the top set for literacy or mathematics were whether the child was born in the Autumn or Winter and cognitive ability scores. Boys were significantly more likely than girls to be in the bottom literacy set. Family circumstances held less importance for setting placement compared with the child's own characteristics, although they were more important in relation to bottom set placement. Children in bottom sets were significantly more likely to be part of a long-term single parent household, have experienced poverty, and not to have a mother with qualifications at NVQ3 or higher levels. The findings are discussed in relation to earlier research and the implications for schools are set out.Keywords: ability grouping; longitudinal studies; school policy; primary education Introduction Grouping pupils by ability within and between schools is controversial and has been the subject of research since the early 1900s. In the primary school, grouping can take several forms: streaming (children are placed in classes on the basis of their perceived general ability); setting (children are grouped across classes for particular subjects based on their perceived ability in that subject); and within class (the teacher organises small groups based on ability within the class). These are not mutually exclusive and children may be streamed, placed in sets and working in within class groupings at any one time.The evidence from primary and secondary education suggests that, overall, structured ability grouping (streaming and setting), of itself, has no positive impact on average attainment, although, depending on the level of curriculum differentiation, can widen the gap between low and high attainers (e.g. Ireson et al. 2002;Kerckhoff 1986;Schofield 2010;Wiliam and Bartholomew 2004). It has personal consequences for pupils, particularly those in the middle and lower groups, as it *Corresponding author. Email: s.hallam@ioe.ac.ukResearch Papers in Education, 2014 Vol. 28, No. 4, 393-420, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2012 Ó 2012 The Author(s). Published by Routledge This is an Open Access article. Non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly attributed, cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way, is permitted. The moral rights of the named author(s) have been asserted. can limit potential educational opportunities (e.g. Ball 1981;Boaler 1997;Lacey 1970), not only affecting expectations but in England setting very real limits on examination entry and possible attainment (Boaler, Wiliam, and B...

Do some schools narrow the gap? Differential school effectiveness revisited

“…It may be that school processes are important in sustaining achievement gaps, but the focus needs to be on widespead within‐school processes. For example recent research suggests that setting (or tracking as it is termed in the USA) is quite widespread within primary schools in England, with a recent nationally representative survey indicating that over one‐third of children in Y2 were set in literacy, mathematics or both, and that low SES children were disproportionally represented in bottom sets (Hallam & Parsons, ). Setting has been hypothesised to increase within school gaps for disadvantaged and ethnic minority pupils (Gillborn & Youdell, ; Wiliam & Bartholomew, ; Oakes, ; Schofield, ).…”

Datafied at four: the role of data in the ‘schoolification’ of early childhood education in England

“…Finally, one particular practice can be seen as evidence of 'schoolification'the use of set 'ability' groups in Receptionas this grouping practice increases in prevalence with children's ages (Baines et al 2003;Hallam and Parsons 2013). Grouping practices are controversial (Francis et al 2017) but are increasingly prevalent in younger ages groups (Bradbury and Roberts-Holmes 2017b;Campbell 2014).…”

The misallocation of students to academic sets in maths: A study of secondary schools in England

“…In the US literature, ‘tracking’ can refer to both streaming and setting (Gamoran & Nystrand, ). Within‐class ‘ability’ grouping is most commonly practiced in primary schools, where children are organised at ‘ability tables’ within a class containing a wide range of prior attainment (Hallam & Parsons, ; Marks, ; Bradbury & Roberts‐Holmes, ).…”

“…The evidence in relation to gender appears to be more mixed, with some studies finding that boys are more likely to be allocated to lower streams and sets than girls (Jackson, 1964;Van de Gaer et al, 2006;Hallam & Parsons, 2013a), other studies finding no notable differences (Muijs & Dunne, 2010) and yet others suggesting that boys are more likely to be placed in high-'ability' tracks (Moller & Stearns, 2012).…”