There is “no evidence” setting and streaming by ability in schools harms the outcomes of disadvantaged pupils, a new study suggests.
Professor John Jerrim, from the UCL Institute of Education and Dr Luis Alejandro Lopez-Agudo and Professor Oscar David Marcenaro-Gutierrez analysed data from the 2015 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS).
The paper concluded that its findings were “largely a story of null effects”.
“No evidence is found that either ability grouping or mixed ability grouping is superior in terms of developing students’ academic self-confidence, enjoyment or test scores.
“This holds true for young people across the socio-economic spectrum, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds.”
It also found there was “no evidence that teachers feel less time pressured when ability grouping is used (either in terms of lesson preparation or capacity to cover material in class)”.
But there “are some tentative signs that primary teachers feel more comfortable supporting struggling students – and stretching the highest achievers – when this practice is used”.
The paper went on to say that its finding of no negative impact on poorer pupils “is somewhat counter to prevailing narratives”.
“One potential explanation is many existing studies infer low socio-economic students will be negatively affected by ability grouping based on intermediary results, rather than directly showing this to be the case.
“For instance, several studies argue low socio-economic status children tend to be placed in lower ability sets, and that those placed in lower sets make less academic progress on average than those in higher sets.
“Yet the direct association between between-class ability grouping and disadvantaged students’ outcomes on aggregate has less frequently been displayed.”
‘No clear evidence’
In a blog post, Jerrim pointed out setting and streaming was “more prevalent in England’s schools than in any other country”.
“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.”
He pointed to “one particularly notorious” 2018 paper, which likened setting and streaming to “symbolic violence”.
Jerrim said 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.”
He said the new analysis of TIMSS results found that “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.”
Jerrim concluded that the 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.”
