Abstract
Grouping students by ‘ability’ is a topic of long-standing contention in English education policy, research and practice. While policy-makers 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 on practice in England. This article, contextualised by the authors’ interests in education and social inequality, seeks to do two things. First, it provides a brief analysis of the existing research evidence on the impact of ‘ability’ grouping, with particular reference to socio-economic inequality, identifying seven different explanations for the poorer progress of pupils in low sets that emerge from the literature. Second, 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. The authors postulate that investing in a powerful counter-discourse of enlightenment science, illustrated via their current randomised control trial of different approaches to pupil grouping, may offer a means to challenge hegemonic discourses that underpin current classroom practice.
Highlights
Educational attainment in England is highly stratified by social class
We have summarised the existing research evidence and debate around ‘ability’ grouping, and conclusions of an overall lack of significance of grouping by ability, attending especially to the findings of poorer progress for lower attainment groups, and the implications for social inequality given the overrepresentation of students from disadvantaged backgrounds in these groups
Based on our analysis of the existing literature we have identified seven different potential explanations for the poorer progress of young people in low attaining groups
Summary
Educational attainment in England is highly stratified by social class. There is an especially strong relationship between family wealth and educational outcomes, and between family wealth and posteducation occupational outcomes (Jerrim & Macmillan, 2014). 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) 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). What might explain the current dissonance between research and practice?
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
