I feel genuinely torn about this. On the one hand I am aware that there really isn’t any solid research evidence that setting (or streaming) has much effect on students’ attainment and some evidence which seems to suggest it might be actually detrimental. On the other I want my student to have the best possible chance of success in their GCSE exam in January and some sort of setting appears to be the best way of accomplishing this aim.
Here’s an overview of the different types of selection that goes on in schools:
- Banding – putting pupils into broad ability bands
- Streaming – splitting pupils into different hierarchical groups which stay together for all lessons.
- Setting – putting pupils of similar ability together just for certain lessons.
So, what of mixed ability teaching? Has research discovered that it’s no cop? In fact numerous studies have shown that mixed ability classes help the less able without holding back their more able counterparts (Newbold, 1977). The Scottish Council for Research in Education did find some evidence suggesting that setting is effective in maths, but their concluding message was that, “there is no consistent and reliable evidence of positive effects of setting and streaming in any subjects, or for pupils of particular ability levels”. Note: that’s ny subjects, even maths.
Researchers have found that “even top sets can have negative impacts on students’ achievement”. And the Institute of Education say that ability grouping have “rather little impact on overall attainment” and that “the greater the extent of structured ability groupings, the greater was the degree of apparent stigmatisation of those in lower-ability groups”. OK, so, it definitely doesn’t work for ‘bottom sets’ and isn’t particularly effective for ‘top sets’. So, why do we do it?
Well apart from government’s dogged insistance that is a Good Thing, the main reason that mixed-ability teaching appears to be on the wane is because it can be bloody challenging. Teachers find it knackering, and highly motivated pupils find being taught with their less motivated peers a real drag. Professor Eric Bolton, the former senior chief inspector of schools in England, said few teachers could do it effectively. He believed that “most teachers aim for the middle: The bright children are frustrated and the ones at the bottom get left behind”. Not good.
And why is it that schools are less likely to set for English than for maths? Mainly it’s because in English work can be more easily ‘differentiated by outcome’. This means that everyone can be given the same work on the same subject, but be expected to produce work of differing quality. But this sort of differentiation can (and does) lead to the kind of low expectations that Bolton warns about.
So, is motivation the key to setting perhaps? In our faculty we had a series of heated discussions about the pros and cons of setting by mindset rather than ability. What if our ‘top sets’ were stocked entirely with students with growth mindsets? What if we grouped fixed mindset children together and worked on their motivation and self belief? I’m sure you can imagine some of the debate. With uncharacteristic caution, I’ve recently set up a small trial group of students who show sufficient motivation to work hard and justify the investment of putting them in a small group with an exceptional teacher. The next exciting step will be to select a group of growth mindset students with C/D targets and attempt to get them A/A* results.
Another possibility is to look at the concept of ‘readiness’ rather than ability. Fearghal Kelly suggests on his very fine blog that the notion of ability is inherently flawed and we should look instead at how ready students are to complete assessments etc. and move away from our preoccupation with how able we perceive students to be at given points.
Anyway, in preparation for the new GCSE English Language exam in January, we felt that the differently tiered papers were sufficiently different (whilst at the same time managing to be confusingly similar) that students needed to be resorted into Foundation and Higher classes. I don’t know whether this is the right thing for the students but it certainly makes teachers lives a lot easier. Our plan is to return students to mixed ability groupings after the exam. Yes, I can see this is a fudge and that I’m occupying a position which is determinedly on the fence but the hard reality of students’ life chances surely has to take some sort of priority over educational ideals?
Ofsted are no help at all. Their official line is: “there is no clear statistical link between the extent of setting in schools and the attainment of pupils”. Right. So. We’ve only the evidence of our own senses and consciences to guide us.
Please feel free to let me know your thoughts.
i say mixed ability all the way. I teach in a geography in a girls sec mod school and all 5 years 7-11 are fully mixed ability in my dept where history and RS are also taught. A few years ago in Key Stage we had our 6 form entry split into two halves and had a top middle bottom set in each half. It was awful; the bottom set in each half had no examples of high achieving pupils to follow and their results at KS3 and and KS4 were predictably low. Now I can organise my class how I wish; sometimes I will have the more able working together in a group and sometimes its all mixed up. This makes much more sense.
I really agree except for the fact that right now, as I explain in the post, Higher & Foundation tiers were sufficiently different and confusingly similar enough to warrant setting our students. My commitment to mixed ability teaching is the reason we will regroup after the exam.
Cheers
I too am torn on this issue. I work in one of the schools that still streams pupils for every subject based on literacy and numeracy tests at the beginning of year 7. They then get put into further, different sets for English and Maths in year 9.
I would say that on the plus side it is generally easier for me to differentiate, as I develop completely different lessons. Also, the school only has a few LSAs and they are concentrated on these classes. They are also smaller of around 16-18 pupils where higher ability classes are 30. This allows for more personal support and I feel I really get to know what will make these classes tick.
However, I have noticed that can be a depressing attitude in the very ‘bottom’ sets where the pupils almost assume they’re “not going to get it”. It feels like they are putting barriers up to even trying and are usually a mix of weak ability and poor behaviour. This is more concentrated than if it was spread across the year group. The only modelling of good work is from me or the LSA rather than through peer support/discussion. And a couple of the more able pupils are constantly arguing (possibly, quite rightly) to be moved up.
I contrast this with my mixed classes during PGCE placement last year. Weaker student appeared more spurred on by the pace of the rest of the class.
Its tricky! In a traditional school like mine, the parents seem to like it…except of course those of pupils in the bottom set…
And that’s the problem isn’t it. The bottom sets always get shafted and often become sink groups. You can’t do anything about the system you school uses but you can make the best of a bad job. I’d recommend focussing on ‘mindsetting’ these bottom set kids; show them their statistically likely grade spreads (available from any decent school data manager) and use them to inspire them with what’s possible. What if these aren’t sufficiently inspirational? Make em up!
Good luck
It’s difficult to pass comment on this as I’m from SEN school. No streaming or setting is possible obviously. What I can comment on is the differentiation factor. We have 10 children per class. All are vastly different ability levels. Within each class the ability level usually ranges from P3 up to National Curriculum level 5. This is a spread of 10 levels without looking at sub levels within P levels. Differentiation is therefore key to meaningful learning. If a special school teacher is employed to differentiate each lesson up to a possible 10 times why do mainstream feel the need to set and stream? Would it not be better to have mixed ability classes and differentiate up and down accordingly?
You have a point Cherryl but anecdotally, differentiation is not something we do well as teachers. Many feel that mixed ability teaching is impossible to do well and that differentiating across the whole range of ability is a farce.
The other view might be that because setting IS possible is main stream schools that there’s reason enough to do it.
Am playing devil’s advocate somewhat, but I do believe that setting makes teacher’s lives more straightforward on the whole.
I think a problem is that teachers/curriculum leaders don’t examine the reason why they set/stream. What is their rational and what do try want to achieve with it? How is its effectiveness to be measure? Too frequently it is done because it has always been done or for time tabling reasons.
The teaching and learning strategies need to work with why the students are in that group. Time consuming but done well can be effective. More time consuming than planning for mixed ability? I’m not sure.
Thought needs to be given as to how students are placed in sets. Variability in test scores can result in students being misplaced by more than one group.
I think you’re right Janet. My guiding principle when putting classes together is that they’re functional. I’m happy to tweak until behaviour/motivation problems are minimised. as far as setting goes, we have 2 top sets, 8 mixed ability groups and 2 ‘nurture’ groups.
I hate the traditional bottom set and our nurture groups are not set by ability but by the vulnerability of the students. They work brilliantly and results are off the scale.
We have top sets to maximise A/A* chances and these classes follow a different programme of study to allow for this. I’m not 100% sure this is the right thing to do and am keen to explore alternatives.
The issue to which I refer in the post is a short term necessity.
Does this address your point? Thanks for the comment.
It is a lot easier for differentiation if you set, and I’m all for reducing workload for teachers, so for me that’s the ultimate decider that I think it’s a good idea.
However, the bottom sets are worse to teach because of their attitude that they are no good. So who draws the short straw?
Still, the differentiated nature of their lessons means they will get the best teaching appropriate for them, so I’m still for it.
Do you think allowing students a chance to ‘move up a set’ would work to combat this?
The corollary to moving up is moving down. How should we manage this? I’m for setting in some contexts but against setting by ability across the board. Does that help?
What a great post! I recently completed an essay on setting for my MA and the major issue was that the research seems to be so contradictory when it comes to deciding setting vs mixed-ability. I did think that the most interesting point one researcher made (forget which one – will have to look back at the essay!) was that although neither method of grouping showed any statistically significant advantage, there is a significant disadvantage shown for pupils in ‘bottom’ groups in schools that use setting.
I think a big reason why schools may use setting, despite the lack of evidence that it improves achievement, is the fact that many parents view it as the only way for pupils to achieve as highly as they want them to. I think it is a debate that will continue for a very long time!
Thank you
You may be right about the influence of parents although I think it’s often as much about inertia: we always set so we will continue to set.
The problem comes from the fact that while it may not be better for learning it’s certainly easier for teaching. And teachers know this without perhaps understanding implications for the kids.
http://www.suttontrust.com/news/news/smaller-classes-uniforms-and-primary-homework-among/
Worth looking at – any benefits for higher ability groups are out weighed by the negative effects on lower ability groups.
I think short term, well planned, evidence based groupings for a fixed purpose can be beneficial.
I find the earlier comment about setting makes it easier for teachers but not great for the students and learning true. But if we’re not in teaching for the students and the learning, why would we be teachers?!
Great discussion, thanks.
Thanks Janet. Yes, should have included this research myself. It all seems fairly conclusive doesn’t it? I’d like a supporter of setting to challenge all this jolly concensus…
I keep meaning to review the evidence properly on this.
This research stands out for having been randomised:
http://ipl.econ.duke.edu/bread/papers/0809conf/Dupas.pdf
[…] deep learning and how do you do it? – Tempering Geoff Petty with a dash of Dan Willingham To set or not to set? – what it says Does creativity need rules? – Yes, I think it does What is it […]
All the international research shows setting-and any other term you wish to use for it- is counterproductive and does not work. The effect on children’s self esteem works against any possible argument for ‘like students’ working together.
We are an infant school and we will not touch it with a barge pole. When we did pilot if for maths-one of the 6 year olds said ‘Am I not clever at maths?’ When asked why he would think this he replied ‘because I have been put in the same class as ‘Johnny’ ( not the real name of the child).
Why are we so arrogant as a profession-all the evidence from years of international research tells us one thing but we say-‘yes but it works for us!!’ Imagine if doctors took the same view. Let’s just ignore the research and the proven methods-I am doing open heart surgery my way’
Sorry to say it-but in Primary the only justification is to make planning and delivery easier for teachers. It is about making housework easier and not about improving learning.
In other words it is about the adults and not the children.
We cannot ignore millions of pounds worth of international research carried out over many years.Why should we want to?
Setting in Primary schools is a terrible idea-full stop.
I have not studied in detail the research for secondaries but I really hope secondary colleagues have done so before setting. I understand there will be different challenges-super motivated ‘ready to learn’ students and those who might not feel motivated or engaged. This must make teaching more difficult.
I would be interested in hearing of any research that might contradict all the work carried out over the last 30 years
It’s very interesting for me to see the effect on setting from the perspective of parenthood. One of my children has been put in the ‘bottom set’ in PE. He’s quite happy with this (having been on the receiving side of some unpleasantness from the sporty kids in the top set), but as a group they have named themselves the Rejects. Which says quite a lot, I think.
Differential expectation is bread and butter of teaching. Based on the assumption that all classes, including sets, are mixed ability. The inequity of setting can be at the margin, where a child can be in a “lower” set as a result of one mark. Therefore essential to ensure equity of challengeand future opportunity.
Probably easier to draw, but, I’ll attempt a word picture!
Test=differentiation by outcome= list top to bottom. Divided into suitable groupings, 20/30. Top, middle, bottom. Ensure through planning that bottom of mid challenged the same as bottom of top group, through group based sc/wilf, linked with individualised target setting. Also linked within “two page” framing approach to writing (on website), can create a more fluid, dynamic approach to challenge, especially if child selects targets from list against which to be marked and seek personal feedback.
http://www.inclusionmark.co.uk/index.php/learningteaching/framing-writing
http://www.inclusionmark.co.uk/index.php/learningteaching/learning-and-teaching-policies/differentiating-differentiation
I knew it wouldn’t be easy to explain!
In differentiating differentiation, I also discuss differential inputs. If a group already knows what you are teaching, why are they sitting there and not doing a more appropriate activity?
Are teachers aware how they differentiate speech patterns and vocabulary for different groups, consciously or not?