What Are the Effects of Ability Grouping on GCSE Attainment?

Page 1

Theme(s): Pupil grouping and organisation of classes

What are the effects of ability grouping on GCSE attainment?

Authors:

Ireson, Judith, Hallam, Susan and Hurley, Clare

Institute of Education, University of London, UK

Publisher:

British Educational Research Journal (2005) Vol. 31 No. 4 pp 443-458

The debate about ability grouping among school leaders, teachers, school governors, policy makers and researchers has been brought into sharp focus over recent years. Whilst questions have been raised in the United States about the effectiveness and equity of ‘tracking’ students (when students are assigned to different ‘ability tracks’ with differentiated curricula), the UK has moved towards increased use of setting (when students are assigned to different ‘sets’ on the basis of attainment in individual subjects) in response to government policy and the introduction of competitive pressures such as performance tables. Previous research findings about the effects of grouping students by ability have not given consistent messages and reflect great variety in practice in different schools and in different countries.

This study of over 6000 students in British secondary schools used statistical analysis to isolate different factors that might affect achievement in order to identify the specific effect of setting by ability. The study found that, when other variables were controlled, the number of years of setting had virtually no effect on average GCSE attainment. Yet there was a profound effect on the attainment of individual students of the same ability who were placed in high or lower sets.

Keywords:

United Kingdom; GCSE; Secondary schools; Classroom organisation; Pupil grouping; Setting; Motivation; Attainment; Pedagogy; Teacher attitudes

Page 2

Contents

What were the study’s main findings?Page 3

What were the effects of the number of years of setting experienced by students on their attainment at GCSE? Page 4

How did students of similar achievement at KS3 fare at GCSE when placed in different sets? Page 5

What determined the set in which students were placed? Page 6

How did teaching styles and expectations vary between sets?Page 7

How was the study designed and carried out?Page 8

What are the implications of this work?Page 9

Where can I find out more?Page 10

Page 3

What were the study’s main findings?

When the researchers looked at the GCSE results for three groups of schools with differing setting policies, they found that:

• there was little or no effect of setting on average GCSE achievement in a school.

They also found that:

• setting could have a profound effect on individual students; and
• GCSE achievement was greatly influenced by social disadvantage.

The number of years of setting experienced by students between years 7 and 11 in a given subject had little overall effect on average GCSE attainment in that subject. For students with different levels of attainment at Key Stage 3, there was a very small link between setting and GCSE achievement in science, but not in English or mathematics. In science, students who did better at Key Stage 3 tests achieved slightly higher grades in schools with less setting and those with lower attainment at KS3 achieved slightly higher grades in schools with more setting. The researchers emphasised that the differences in GSCE scores were very small and only just statistically significant.

The effect of setting on individual students could be profound. Students who reached the same level of attainment in the Key Stage 2 and Key Stage 3 national tests achieved higher GCSE grades when they were placed in higher sets compared with those of similar ability placed in lower sets. On average, the advantage of being placed in a top set, rather than a low set, in maths and English was almost one whole GCSE grade (click to page 5).

The study also looked at other factors affecting attainment by comparing progress made by different groups of students between Year 6 and Year 11, irrespective of the effect of setting. It found that, although girls made more progress than boys in all subjects, the eventual differences in their GCSE grades were quite small. But the effects of social disadvantage were profound. For students with the same initial measure of attainment, those taking free school meals achieved lower grades than their more economically advantaged peers – they fell behind by about one third of a grade in maths and science and one quarter of a grade in English.

The researchers concluded that factors such as pedagogy, curriculum, teachers’ attitudes and student motivation led to variations in student attainment.

Page 4

What were the effects of the number of years of setting experienced by students on their attainment at GCSE?

Schools in England vary greatly in the extent to which they place students in sets. Some subjects are taught in sets for longer periods of time than others. This variety allowed the researchers to investigate the relationship between the number of years of setting a student experienced from Y7 to Y11 in a given subject and their GCSE results in that subject.

Contrary to what the advocates of setting might expect, the study found that, when other factors such as students’ gender, socio-economic background, attendance and prior attainment were controlled, the number of years of setting had little overall effect on average GCSE attainment.

The study also considered results for high, medium and low attaining students separately. They found no relationship between the number of years of setting students had experienced in maths or English and their average GCSE results in these subjects, whatever their ability level. However, in science, the GCSE scores of low attaining students who had been set for a longer period of time were very slightly higher than expected. The researchers noted that this finding, which was just significant, was opposite to trends found in previous studies and speculated that it might be accounted for by the higher rate of attrition they found amongst lower achieving students.

Page 5

How did students of similar achievement at KS3 fare at GCSE when placed in different sets?

Students who reached the same level of achievement at the end of Key Stage 3 (KS3) national tests were not all placed in the same ability set. In most schools, students who attained intermediate levels in KS3 tests were found in at least three different sets. As well as comparing GCSE results against the length of time students worked in ability sets for a subject (click to page 4), the researchers also explored whether the set in which a student studied affected their attainment at GCSE. Again, they used statistical methods to control for differences in gender, social disadvantage and attendance.

The study found that students who achieved the same KS3 level gained higher grades at GCSE if they were in a higher set. Those in top sets achieved higher grades than middle sets and those in middle sets achieved higher grades than those in low sets. The advantage of being in a top, as opposed to a bottom set, was greatest for students who attained intermediate levels (4, 5 and 6) in their KS3 tests. For some, the advantage was very great: for example, students who gained level 4 at KS3 in maths and were placed in the top set gained 1.5 GCSE grades compared with fellow students who gained level 4 at KS3 but were placed in the bottom set.

On average, the advantage of being placed in a top set, rather than a low set, in maths and English was almost one whole GCSE grade. The gains for top set students were slightly smaller in science.

Page 6

What determined the set in which students were placed?

The study found that students of about the same ability were found in several different sets within a school and that this had implications for their eventual attainment. Students with intermediate levels of attainment were especially likely to be dispersed across a wide range of sets.

It appeared that students were not always assigned to sets for academic reasons. The author suggested that certain students were separated for social reasons. Other students were placed in particular sets for behavioural reasons.

Moreover, student mobility between sets was limited after the first year and reduced further as students moved up the school. Once sets had been formed, many factors made it difficult for students to move from one set to another. Schools often operated complex timetables that made it difficult for students to transfer from one set to another without also affecting arrangements for other subjects.

Page 7

How did teaching styles and expectations vary between sets?

The study found a wide variation in ability between students in the same set. Nevertheless, teachers appeared to treat sets as if the students within them were all of approximately the same ability. They also used different teaching approaches for different sets.

Teachers reported that they expected a good deal of top set students and gave them more challenging work. They expected students to work at a faster pace and included more opportunities for discussion. The pace in lower sets was slower. The work was more structured and repetitious. Teaching proceeded more slowly and offered few opportunities for discussion. It also covered less of the curriculum.

Teachers who had experience of mixed ability teaching said that they changed their approach when asked to teach sets. The researchers suggested that this reflected a widespread, but mistaken belief, that within a given set, the spread of ability was relatively small. They also commented that ability grouping might encourage teachers to believe that student ability is fixed, rather than changeable, and to adjust their expectations to the perceived ability of the group .

Page 8

How was the study designed and carried out?

The study followed over 6000 students from Year 9 through to the end of Year 11 when they sat their GCSE examinations in 2000. The students came from 45 mixed secondary schools, which reflected a range of grouping practices, intake and location but were all described as satisfactory or good by Ofsted.

A few schools left the study thus reducing the number of students in the analysis samples. The authors grouped the remaining 38 schools according to how much they used setting:

• 12 schools used mainly mixed ability classes and set students for no more than two subjects from Year 9;
• 13 schools were described as ‘partially set’ if they set students for up to two subjects from Year 7, increasing to a maximum of four subjects set after Year 9; and
• 13 schools used a high degree of setting and placed students in groups by ability in at least four subjects from Year 7.

The authors used statistical methods to compare attainment at GCSE and the number of years of setting the students had experienced from Years 7 to 11. They also investigated prior achievement in Key Stage 2 and 3 national tests, compared this with attainment at GCSE and related this to the amount of setting experienced. They controlled for other variables thought to be associated with achievement including gender, attendance and entitlement to free school meals.

The three groups of schools were balanced with respect to school size but schools with more mixed-ability classes had a higher intake of socially disadvantaged students than schools that used more setting. The authors investigated the effect of attrition in the student sample. They found that high attaining students were retained in the sample but that there were about 130-170 students in each subject for whom they did not have a record of GCSE results. The author drew attention to the fact that, although these students were a small percentage of the entire 6000, they represented 20% of low attainers (reaching level 3 or less) at Key Stage 3. The loss of these low attaining students’ GCSE results from the sample might have inflated the overall results.

Page 9

What are the implications of this work?

In completing this study, the authors began to ask the following questions about implications for practitioners:

• One tends to assume that ability range within a set is limited, yet the study found a remarkably wide range of ability amongst students in the sets. How might this finding affect how you differentiate for students within the sets you teach?

• Teaching styles varied between top and bottom sets. Teachers said that they gave work in lower sets that was more structured and repetitious and relied more on students memorising ‘what to do’, rather than on developing understanding. How does your teaching help students to develop alternative strategies for reaching a solution when their memory fails them?

• The study found that students in different sets who started at the same level of attainment could vary in attainment by as much as one full grade at GCSE. How might a teacher treat students differently if they changed from a belief that student capability was fixed to a belief that it could be extended?

• Students achieved more if their teacher had high expectations of them (and vice versa). How do you communicate your expectations to your students? What types of questions have you found to be helpful in making students think and make new connections?

School leaders may wish to consider the following:

• Although the study found no overall effect on average achievement of the amount of setting used by a school, setting did appear to widen the range of GCSE results for individuals, increasing top sets’ grades and depressing achievement in bottom sets. How might this affect your decisions about setting in your school? Might you consider forming mixed ability groups for teaching the majority of students and using ability based groups only for the high attainers?

• The study found students of the same attainment level in a wide range of sets. How do you ensure that decisions about set placement are as accurately related to academic ability as possible?

• The study indicated that moving students between sets was often limited by practical difficulties, thus reducing students’ opportunities for improvement. What steps could be taken in your school to identify students who should be moved between sets and to ease this movement?

• Some schools appeared to have allocated students to ability sets partly to ease social or behavioural problems. If, as the study indicated, allocation to a low set decreases students’ eventual level of attainment, is this practice equitable? What measures could be used to address behavioural and social issues more directly?

Page 10

Where can I find out more?

Other TRIPS digests relevant to this topic can be found at:

The research by Susan Hallam Judith Ireson and Clare Hurley on this subject is also summarised on the following website: A GTC Research of the Month summary (Grouping pupils and students - what difference does the type of grouping make to teaching and learning in schools?) of their book can be found at:

A further GTC Research of the Month summary, ‘Experiencing Secondary School Mathematics’, based on Boaler, J. (2002) Experiencing School Mathematics, which compared the effects of setting and mixed ability teaching can also be found at:

A short review by Wynne Harlen, Making Sense of the Research on Ability Grouping, based on her review for The Scottish Council for Research in Education can be downloaded from:

A recent literature review on the effects of pupil grouping published by the DfES (October 2005)