The teaching and learning of pupils in low‐attainment sets

Abstract

This study explored the ways in which schools addressed the needs of pupils in low-attainment class groups, or sets, in the context of multiple and contrary government policy directives and inconclusive research findings about setting. In this article we have focused on school and classroom practices as well as the organisational processes through which low-attaining pupils were identified, grouped and reviewed within schools. The empirical data reported here predominantly refer to case studies involving classroom observations and interviews with teachers, pupils and other staff in 13 schools -both primary and secondary -from four local authorities (LAs).In the latter part of the article, however, we also draw on survey data collected from a larger sample of schools in 12 LAs in England. Although the study found ample evidence of innovative school practices and efforts by individual teachers aimed at optimising the learning opportunities for children in low-attainment class groups, the findings also raise important questions about some of the processes of set allocation, the lack of mobility between sets, and the overrepresentation of particular social groups in low-attainment classes. We conclude with a discussion of the implications for equity and inclusion that moves beyond an emphasis on classroom practice to include questions about the in-school processes of social selection and educational mobility for pupils identified as low-attaining.

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

“…In fact while Dunne et al (2007) found prior attainment was the main predictor of set placement, they found it a relatively poor predictor, with for example over half the pupils with low prior attainment in English being placed in middle or high sets. They also found that social class is a significant predictor of set placement, with those pupils from higher socio-economic status (SES) backgrounds being more likely to be assigned to higher sets, and less likely to be assigned to lower sets.…”

“…There is extensive evidence that certain groups of children (those from lower socio-economic groups, and from particular minority ethnic groups) are over-represented in low sets and streams, and that such allocation does not always match 'ability' as designated by IQ tests (Jackson, 1964) or test scores (Dunne et al, 2007). In fact while Dunne et al (2007) found prior attainment was the main predictor of set placement, they found it a relatively poor predictor, with for example over half the pupils with low prior attainment in English being placed in middle or high sets.…”

“…Although this trend might be predicted given the impact of social inequality on 'school readiness' noted above (meaning that children from low SES backgrounds tend to start from a lower base), over the past half-century practices of allocation have been consistently shown to be biased (Jackson, 1964;Tomlinson, 1987;Dunne et al 2007), and not necessarily reflective of 'ability' or prior attainment (Jackson, 1964;Dunne et al, 2007).…”

“…As we shall see, these practices have promoted social segregation (Ball, 1981;Cassen & Kingdon, 2007;OECD, 2014), with working class pupils -and those from some minority ethnic groups -disproportionately represented in low sets and streams (Kutnick et al, 2005;Dunne et al, 2007;Cassen & Kingdon, 2007).…”

Factors deterring schools from mixed attainment teaching practice

“…However additional information may also be used. For example, perceptions of behaviour or interstudent relationships may be used, or students with specific additional needs placed together in order to share the support of a teaching assistant (Dunne et al 2011;Hallam & Ireson 2007). …”