Exploring the relative lack of impact of research on ‘ability grouping’ in England: a discourse analytic account

Abstract

Grouping students by 'ability' is a topic of long-standing contention in English education policy, research and practice. While policymakers have frequently advocated the practice as reflecting educational 'standards', research has consistently failed to find significant benefits of 'ability' grouping; and indeed has identified disadvantages for some (low attaining) pupil groups. However, this research evidence has apparently failed to impact practice in England. This article, contextualised by the authors' interests in education and social inequality, seeks to do two things. Firstly, it provides a brief analysis of the existing research evidence on the impact of 'ability' grouping, with particular reference to socioeconomic inequality; identifying seven different explanations for the poorer progress of pupils in low sets that emerge from the literature. Secondly, it applies Foucaultian 'analysis of discourse' to propose potential explanations for the apparent lack of traction of existing research with policy and practice, arguing that practices of 'ability grouping' reflect cultural investments in discourses of 'natural order' and hierarchy, with particular resonance for the discursive and political habitus of middle class parents.We postulate that investing in a powerful counter-discourse of enlightenment science, illustrated via our current randomised control trial of different approaches to pupil grouping, may offer a means to challenge hegemonic discourses that underpin current classroom practice.

Factors deterring schools from mixed attainment teaching practice

“…Students in these groups make less 5 progress and achieve lower outcomes than their peers in higher sets Ireson & Hallam 2001;Slavin 1990). This leads to the conclusion that placement of students from disadvantaged backgrounds in low attainment groups results in their being doubly disadvantaged (Francis et al 2016). state that 'low attaining learners fall behind by one or two months a year, on average, when compared with the progress of similar students in classes with mixed ability groups.'…”

“…It is clear from the above that research evidence against setting and streaming is being overlooked by schools when it comes to 'ability' grouping practices. As we have elaborated elsewhere (Francis et al 2016), there is a range of socio-political explanations for the longstanding commitment to attainment grouping in the English schooling system. We have shown how successive 8 governments have actively advocated setting especially, and problematised mixed attainment practice (Dracup 2014;Francis et al 2016;Husbands 2014).…”

“…As we have elaborated elsewhere (Francis et al 2016), there is a range of socio-political explanations for the longstanding commitment to attainment grouping in the English schooling system. We have shown how successive 8 governments have actively advocated setting especially, and problematised mixed attainment practice (Dracup 2014;Francis et al 2016;Husbands 2014). We traced the socio-historic associations between segregation by 'ability' and notions of educational (and social) 'excellence', and the ways in which these deeply resonant discourses have been maintained in political debate (Francis et al 2016).…”

“…We have shown how successive 8 governments have actively advocated setting especially, and problematised mixed attainment practice (Dracup 2014;Francis et al 2016;Husbands 2014). We traced the socio-historic associations between segregation by 'ability' and notions of educational (and social) 'excellence', and the ways in which these deeply resonant discourses have been maintained in political debate (Francis et al 2016). Nevertheless, there may also be practical and pedagogical explanations for the reluctance to engage with mixed attainment grouping, and it is this that we seek to investigate in this article.…”

The symbolic violence of setting: A Bourdieusian analysis of mixed methods data on secondary students’ views about setting

“…The majority of secondary schools in England set-that is, group students for learning in core subjects according to some sort of measure of prior attainment (Ireson & Hallam, 2001;Kutnick et al, 2005;Dunne et al, 2007;Francis et al, 2016). For instance, Stewart (2013) discusses how, despite the brief popularity of mixed-attainment teaching in the 1960s, setting has always been common, but has recently been overwhelmingly adopted by secondary schools and championed by high-quality curriculum for all, the maintenance of performance among high achievers, improved student aspirations and narrowing of the ethnic attainment gap (Burris & Welner, 2005;Burris et al, 2006).…”