On average pupils in schools with mixed-attainment maths classes made one month’s less progress
Teaching maths in mixed ability classes can lead to slower progression for some pupils compared to when classes are grouped by attainment, according to new research. The independent charity the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) has published new research on student grouping in maths, conducted by the UCL Institute for Education.
The Student Grouping Study, which was commissioned to provide up-to-date evidence from English schools, compared the attainment and self-confidence of Year 7 and Year 8 pupils (aged 11 – 13) taught in mixed-attainment classes with those taught in classes set by prior attainment across 97 schools. Of the 97 schools that took part, 28 of them used mixed attainment groups while 69 used setting for maths.
The research found that on average teaching maths in sets does not appear to harm the progress of pupils with lower prior attainment, or from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds. These groups made similar progress whether they were taught in mixed-attainment maths classes or in classes that were set by attainment. However, pupils with higher prior attainment in maths who were taught in mixed-attainment maths classes made less progress than those taught in ‘setted’ maths classes (this was equivalent to approximately two months’ less progress). As a result, overall, pupils in schools with mixed-attainment maths classes made one month’s less progress in maths, compared to students in schools where maths classes were set by attainment.
Lesson observations were carried out as part of the research, and these suggested that the content of mixed-attainment classes – when compared to schools that grouped by attainment – was closer to what was taught to lower sets than higher sets. The report notes that this may have been influenced by changes in teaching following the introduction of the ‘Teaching for Mastery’ approach in 2017. It was also observed that, in mixed-ability classes, extension activities for higher attainers were often unrelated to lesson content and rarely discussed in class. Meanwhile top sets offered more challenge through faster pace and greater GCSE focus. The study says that in general, despite well-intentioned policies in mixed attainment schools around equity and challenge for high attainers, only setting schools appear to be challenging students with high prior attainment.
Based on these findings and existing research, the EEF is recommending that schools who choose to use mixed-attainment groups should ensure maths teachers provide stretch opportunities for high-attaining pupils. They also suggest schools who choose to group students by prior attainment should ensure that specialist maths teachers are not concentrated only in the top sets, and that it is possible for pupils to move between groups depending on attainment.
Commenting on the findings, Professor Becky Francis CBE, CEO of the EEF, said: ‘This study is an important step forward in understanding the impact of different ways of grouping students in England. While this is something people have passionate views on, there’s so much we don’t know. Much of the existing evidence is from other contexts and countries. These results contribute to our understanding of good practice in maths. We hope more research can expand our understanding on this important topic.’
Pepe Di’Iasio, the general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, commented: ‘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.’ He added: ‘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. Unfortunately, there is a longstanding problem with recruiting maths teachers and many schools have no choice other than to use nonspecialists and supply cover.’