ENGLAND — Grouping secondary school pupils in England by mathematics ability improves results for high-achieving students without harming the progress of lower-attainers, according to a study released by University College London's Institute of Education. The research analyzed mathematics attainment and self-confidence among Year 7 and Year 8 pupils, aged 11 to 13, attending state schools.
The study examined results from 28 schools using mixed-ability classes and 69 schools using setting by attainment. Schools with mixed-ability classes made on average one month less progress in mathematics overall, while high-achieving pupils in those schools made on average two months less progress than peers in schools using setting by attainment.
Setting pupils by ability did not significantly affect the attainment of pupils with low prior attainment or those from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds. Only schools using setting by attainment appeared to challenge students with high prior attainment. Mixed-ability schools had a smaller gap in mathematics results between their best- and worst-performing pupils, a pattern driven by lower progress among high-prior-attaining students rather than greater progress by low-prior-attaining students. Pupils in mixed-attainment schools also experienced negative effects on self-confidence in mathematics compared with pupils in schools using setting by ability.
The study warned that for ability setting to work properly, schools must avoid allocating their best teachers to the top sets. Many schools have difficulty recruiting specialist mathematics teachers and often rely on nonspecialist teachers and supply cover.
"This direct comparison between setted classes and mixed-attainment is what is innovative and revealing about this new study. What we found is that there was very little difference for low-attaining young people between mixed-attainment and setting classes. Meanwhile, for the high-attainers who make strong progress in high sets, they make lower progress in mixed-attainment classes overall," said Becky Francis, chief executive of the Education Endowment Foundation.
Pepe Di'Iasio, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said: "School leaders are best placed to make decisions about setting, as they best know their context and needs of their pupils. We are sure that this research will be extremely helpful in informing those decisions. The essential ingredient is, of course, having sufficient numbers of specialist maths teachers to ensure that pupils at all attainment levels receive the best support possible."
John Jerrim, professor of education and social statistics, said: "The EEF have spent huge amounts of money investigating this issue. They should probably now come out and support achievement grouping in maths. It has no negative impact on lower-achievers, some positive benefits for high-achievers, and helps teachers manage workload." Jerrim also said: "It wasn't long ago that some educational researchers in the UK and Ireland were calling ability grouping 'symbolic violence'. This work – and other evidence – shows the need for more restraint from academics."