As I have written previously (https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/ioe/2019/09/24/pisa-englands-schools-segregate-by-ability-more-than-almost-every-other-country-in-the-world/),setting and streaming is more prevalent in England’s schools than in any other country.

But is this a good or bad thing?

A lot of qualitative research has been written about the potential negative impacts of such achievement grouping. Particular concern has been shown for its potential negative impacts on young people from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds.

Indeed, one particularly notorious paper has even likened setting and streaming to “symbolic violence” against such groups (https://bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/berj.3321).

However, in a new academic paper I have published today with some colleagues from Spain, we find that things may not be that after all.

The study

One of the key challenges with studying the impact of achievement grouping in England – compared to the alternative of having groups of mixed abilities – is that this practise is used in almost all secondary schools. Particularly in mathematics.

We there used data from the TIMSS study (https://timssandpirls.bc.edu/)– an international study of Year 5 and Year 9 pupil’s skills in reading and mathematics.

For each school in the sample, we know whether they set or stream pupils in science and mathematics. We can also observe pupil outcomes – not only their test scores, but also measures of subject interest and self-confidence.

In the study, we are particularly interested in differences across subjects (science and mathematics) where schools have a policy of setting in one subject but not the other. This – we argue – provides better evidence of the impact that achievement grouping (as a school level policy) has than most previous studies.

Key findings

Table 1 summarises our results for Year 5 and Year 9 pupils from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds. Results are presented in terms of “effect sizes” (standard deviation differences). As a broad rule of thumb, effect sizes around 0.05 or less are very small; in a ranking of 100 pupils, and effect size of 0.05 would be equivalent to gaining around two places.

Table1. The association between achievement grouping and outcomes for pupils from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds

Notes: Positive values indicate where the outcome is higher when achievement grouping is used. A * indicates where the estimated effect size is statistically significant at the 5% level.

Overall, there isn’t much going on at all. When the school uses achievement grouping, we do not see any clear evidence of substantial negative effects on disadvantaged pupil’s test scores, self-confidence or enjoyment of a subject. Indeed, if anything, tests scores of Year 5 pupils may be very slightly higher when achievement grouping is used.

Within the paper we have also investigated the link between achievement grouping and the extent that Year 5teachers feel able to support students who are struggling and challenge high achievers. Interestingly, we also find some evidence (albeit tentative) that primary teachers are more positive about this aspect of their instruction when achievement grouping is used.

What are the implications for schools?

For me, these results do not provide clear evidence that schools should necessarily be doing one thing(achievement grouping) or another (mixed-attainment grouping). Both have certain advantages and disadvantages, and it is best left up to school leaders to decide what is the right approach for their school.

But I do feel it is important that, when making this choice, they know that there isn’t strong evidence that– on average – achievement grouping harms the outcomes of pupils from disadvantaged social backgrounds.

Of course, whatever approach schools choose to use, they need to implement it well. This UCL study (https://www.ucl.ac.uk/ioe/sites/ioe/files/dos_and_donts_of_attainment_grouping_-_ucl_institute_of_education.pdf)provides some useful practical “do’s” and “don’t” which it may be worth considering.  

‍