Teaching in classes grouped by ability does not hamper progress of less able pupils, study finds | Schools
Teaching students in classes grouped by ability improves outcomes for high flyers but does not affect the progress of less-able children, according to a study that upends the decades-long debate over mixed-ability education.
Research by the Institute of Education at University College London has found that secondary school students in England with previously strong maths performances make slower progress in co-educational classes than when they are taught alongside children of similar abilities.
Most importantly, supported by research Education Foundation Foundation (EEF) showed that adjusting for ability “does not significantly harm the achievement of previously low-achieving or socioeconomically disadvantaged students.”
The study’s impact analysis showed negative effects on self-confidence in mathematics for students in coeducational schools compared to students in schools that used the medium; The environment challenges previous reports of undermining the trust of those outside the superclusters.
John Jerrim, professor of education and social statistics at UCL examined the effects of mixed-ability classes but he was not involved in the new research and described the result as “large and important.”
“The EEF has spent a huge amount of money researching this issue. I think they should now come out and support achievement grouping in maths,” said Jerrim, arguing that “it has no negative impact on low achievers, has some positive benefits for high achievers and helps teachers manage workload.”
Jerrim added: “It wasn’t long ago that some education researchers in the UK and Ireland called ability grouping ‘symbolic violence’. I think this study and other evidence suggest that academics need greater restraint.”
Becky Francis, chief executive of the EEF, said the research was the first to detail the relative progress made by pupils at different ability levels for pupils in mixed ability classes and sets.
Francis said: “Fundamentally, this direct comparison between specific grades and mixed achievement is what is innovative and illuminating about this new study.
“What we found was that there was little difference between co-educational and ambient classes for low-achieving young people.
“Meanwhile, high achievers who make strong progress in higher sets generally make poorer progress in mixed-level classes.”
The research examined the mathematics achievements and self-confidence of 7th and 8th grade students aged between 11 and 13, attending public schools in England. The research was based on results from 28 schools with mixed-ability classrooms and 69 similar schools using attainment-adjusted settings.
Among high-achieving students, those in mixed-ability classes made an average of two months less progress compared with students in schools using attainment-based media. Schools with mixed classes generally made less than a month’s progress.
“Overall, despite well-intentioned policies to fight for equity and high achievers in coeducational schools, only medium schools appear to challenge high achievers,” the researchers noted.
While there was a smaller gap in results between the best and worst-performing pupils in mixed-ability schools, the researchers said this was “due to lower progress among high-achieving pupils rather than greater progress of the low-achieving group”.
The study also warned that for talent tuning to work properly, schools should avoid appointing their best teachers to top positions.
Pepe Di’Iasio, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said: “School leaders are in the best position to make decisions about the environment because they know their context and the needs of their students best. We are confident that this research will be extremely useful in informing these decisions.
“The key, of course, is to have enough specialist mathematics teachers to ensure that students at all attainment levels receive the best possible support.
“Unfortunately, there is a long-standing problem in recruiting maths teachers, and many schools have no choice but to hire and provide insurance for non-specialists.”
