The ongoing debate over selection and setting

• The specialist schools/city academies debate
• School structure

Disadvantaged children have unfair setting system

Children and Young People Now have reported on a study by the Department for Children, Schools and Families which has found that disadvantaged children who attend schools that follow a setting system are being put in lower sets, regardless of their previous grades. The study found that 38.9% of pupils in lower sets are eligible for free school meals, a large over-representation when considering these children make up 15% of all school children.

(Children and Young People Now, 1-9 October 2007)

Setting determines a pupil’s future as early as aged four

The TES has reported that a study by Sussex University has said that streaming, or setting, at an early age leaves pupils with a legacy of ‘academic mediocrity and social stagnation’. The study says that 88% of children in sets at age four stay in the same grouping until they leave school. Jo Boaler, author of the study, said that placing children in small, ability-based sets consistently fails working class children.

In Sweden, grouping by ability is illegal; in the US there is no setting in elementary schools; in Japan pupils are seen as having equal potential; Finland is committed to mixed-ability; and Italy has no setting until aged 15. In the UK the Government has shown strong support of a Social Market Foundation statement in 2006 which called for setting in primary schools.

(TES Scotland, 20 April 2007)

When it comes to exams, class matters

Sending disadvantaged students to affluent schools significantly raises their exam grades, the first nationwide analysis of the effects of class on test scores has revealed. The findings support Labour's plans to open up middle class institutions to poorer pupils. The analysis, which used a complex marketing database to compare an area's test results with its socioeconomic status, found that a pupil's peer group was the third most important factor in determining their success.

The first was previous test scores and the second, the socioeconomic make-up of their neighbourhood. The class and race of the child was less important. Disadvantaged children attending predominantly middle class schools achieved noticeably higher results than peers at schools dominated by low-income families, research found.

Conversely, middle class children at low-performing inner city schools under achieved. The remarks were part of a wider strategy of offering poorer pupils access to a middle class education by encouraging private schools to go public and expand their bursary schemes. The strategy has for many signified a loss of faith in the mixed ability and mixed class comprehensive system. But it has been given statistical backing by this latest research, to be published in the Urban Studies journal in January. A culture of achievement, high expectations, low disruption and raised intellectual stimulation were likely to account for the disparity, researchers said.

(TES, 24 November 2006)

Streaming's return brings class divide

The trend for primary schools to set pupils by ability is leading to children being grouped largely by their social class, research has found. The paper by Bath and London Universities also revealed that in some schools pupils of similar ability were put into separate groups and then taught in very different ways.

The study looked at 12 Hampshire primary and junior schools and found that they contradicted "the popular notion of primary school grouping", with all mixed-ability classes with some grouping within the classes. Instead, three-quarters of the school were setting pupils by ability in at least one subject. Of those, a third went further and streamed their pupils, putting them in classes according to their ability for all subjects.

The researchers say their findings match the national picture: "Since the introduction of high-stakes testing, and particularly since the introduction of the national strategies for numeracy and literacy in 1999, the use of grouping has increased and changed. With the national strategies' emphasis on whole-class teaching for at least part of the lessons, and the achievement of specific curriculum objectives, many schools have moved towards setting by ability."

At one school, the need to divide a cohort of 60 into two equal sets for numeracy meant 14 pupils of the same ability were split between two classes. The researchers found that in these borderline cases it was more likely to be working class pupils who ended up in the lower set, resulting in major differences to the way we are taught.

The report said: "In the top set there is a strong focus on formal learning and children are constantly reminded not to call out or disrupt the learning of others. The teacher of the bottom set allows a more exuberant and noisy environment and emphasises fun." The academics concluded that future studies on the social mix of schools should look beyond their overall composition and also examine the impact of setting.

School socio-economic composition and pupil grouping in the primary school by Ruth Lupton, Amelia Hempel-Jorgenson, Frances Castle, Ceri Brown and Hugh Lauder.

(TES, 22 September 2006)

Teens have sets on the brain

According to research, secondary pupils would rather be put into sets by ability than taught in mixed-ability groups. A study of more than 5,000 showed that 62% indicated a preference for setting, while 24% opted for mixed-ability classes. 2% said they were in favour of streaming or banding, while 7% did not know, the study from London University's Institute of Education found.

Researchers looked at attitudes of pupils in 45 mixed secondaries, in various parts of the country. Schools were grouped into three categories: those favouring mixed-ability teaching; partially set schools where pupils were taught by ability in no more than two subjects; and those who used streaming or banding in at least four subjects, to reflect experience of pupils.

They found that preferences varied depending on where children were taught. Those in mixed-ability groups were more likely to favour this form of teaching. Setting was the preference of more than seven out of 10 pupils in set and partially-set schools and 47% of those in missed-ability schools. Pupils with high attainment levels and higher socio-economic status tended to prefer setting. However, the researchers found that those who favoured mixed-ability teaching tended to like school better and had higher levels of self-esteem.

The report, Secondary school pupils' preferences for different types of structured grouping practices, published in the British Educational Research Journal, said it was not surprising that those in the bottom sets preferred mixed-ability grouping. The authors stated that: "Being in low sets limits educational opportunities, offers a more restricted range of learning experiences and carries with it the stigma of being labelled 'thick'." Almost half of pupils who liked setting said that it enabled teachers to match work to pupils' needs.

(TES, 11 August 2006)

Setting can lead to bullying, say pupils

Setting does not benefit pupils in either the top or bottom ability groups, according to pupils themselves. This is the main finding from key research which, unusually, set out to discover pupils' views of setting and mixed-ability teaching. Pupils from top to bottom sets reported stigmatisation of individuals and even bullying. Despite legislation that requires children to be consulted on factors affecting their education, they are often excluded from decisions on class organisation.

According to a report based on the study by Chris Smith and Margaret Sutherland, of Glasgow University, pupils believe that being set in classes according to their ability can place them under undue pressure, which in turn can affect how well they learn.

Research into pupils' views of setting and mixed-ability groupings shows pupils are acutely aware that formal testing is the most important criterion for selection into sets. The researchers said that this causes anger and resentment, particularly among those who feel they do not perform well in exams, or who believe that they are subjected to too much formal testing.

(TES Scotland, 23 June 2006)

Success of single-sex schools is 'down to selection, not gender'

A study of the way children learn has found that boys and girls are no more likely to achieve better results when they are educated in separate schools than together.Girls' schools consistently top the league tables at GCSE and A level, which the author suggests is attributable to selection and background, rather than gender.

Advocates of single-sex schooling argue that children achieve more academically when they are taught separately. After reviewing a decade of international and national research, Alan Smithers, director of the Centre for Education and Employment Research at the University of Buckingham, says that the evidence does not support this view.

Mr Smithers said: "On performance, there is no evidence that girls will get better results in a single-sex school. The same is true for boys. The girls' schools feature highly in the league tables because they are highly selective, their children come from particular social backgrounds and they have excellent teachers."

(The Times, 26 June 2006)

Comprehensives choose to bar the poor

Comprehensives that control their own admissions are less likely to admit poor, low-achieving or special needs pupils, a study of London secondaries has found. Authors, Professor Anne West and Audrey Hind from the London School of Economics, are now calling for a centrally-controlled admissions system, they say: "There is a strong case for decisions about who is allocated to which school to be taken away from individual schools, given that they have a vested interest in terms of who is admitted."

Their findings, presented to the American Educational Research Association conference, will be seized on by opponents of the education Bill which encourages schools to become their own admissions authorities. They follow research for the Sutton Trust which showed that most top-performing comprehensives control their admissions and do not take a proportionate number of disadvantaged children.

The LSE study compared the proportions of pupils in 367 London comprehensives eligible for free meals, widely used as an indicator of poverty. Among the 197 community and voluntary-controlled schools which followed local authority admissions criteria a third of pupils qualified for free meals. This compared to only 20% in the 170 comprehensives with foundation and voluntary-aided status that controlled their own admissions.

An analysis of 24 London comprehensives with fewer than 5% of deprived pupils on free meals showed 22 controlled their own admissions, 14 used religious criteria to select students and 14 used some potentially selective practice. Their percentages of deprived pupils were between two and 11 times lower than the averages for their authority.

(TES, 21 April 2006)

School reforms could widen social divisions

Radical schools reforms will increase social divisions unless admissions codes are strengthened to prevent heads from creaming off the best pupils, an educational charity has warned.

The Sutton Trust has published research into the social make-up at top comprehensive schools that appeared to show they were guilty of covert selection. Looking at the top 200 comprehensive schools in league tables the study found that those that had control over their own admissions were "unrepresentative" of their local communities. In the postcode districts around these schools, 13.7% of pupils were eligible for free school meals, a commonly used measure of deprivation. But in these top comprehensives, only 5.9% of pupils on average were eligible for free school meals.

The report called for the national school admissions code to be toughened, with parts of it made mandatory, to stop schools in effect selecting pupils by social class.

Sir Peter, who advised successive education secretaries, said the white paper as it stood was likely to deepen social divisions. The Department for Education and Skills disputed some of the report's methodology, pointing out that many of the top schools were simply not receiving enough applications from disadvantaged families.

(Financial Times, 24 January 2006)

Faith secondary schools take significantly fewer pupils with emotional, behavioural and physical difficulties than other state schools, official figures reveal.

The Department for Education and Skills statistics show 17.1 per cent of children at non-religious secondaries this year have special needs compared to 14.1 per cent at faith secondaries. They also show that 18.9 per cent of those at secular primaries have special needs compared to 16 per cent at faith-based primaries.

Earlier this year The TES revealed that Anglican and Catholic schools take fewer children from deprived backgrounds. The latest statistics will reinforce the view of critics that some faith schools out-perform their secular neighbours by covertly selecting the brightest pupils.

This summer's GCSE results showed that 46 of the 100 top-rated comprehensives were faith schools. But the figures reveal that non-faith secondaries take almost a fifth more children with special needs, which include autism, ADHD, emotional and physical disabilities.

(TES, 11 November 2005)

Low-performing schools were given a year to improve or face closure yesterday in what teaching unions claimed was an attempt to shore up the Government's flagship city academy programme.

Ruth Kelly, the education secretary, said children could not be asked to wait while the weakest schools continued to fail. As many as 285 low-performing schools are under scrutiny. "Parents, children and communities deserve better. This is why academies are a key part of our reform agenda. They have a special role to play in transforming opportunities in our most deeply deprived areas," she said.

Mrs Kelly also said that faith groups and parents' organisations could take over failing schools. "We need to harness all the energy and skill we can in the provision of state education so that we can raise standards for every pupil," she said. "I am therefore interested in seeing how we can work with a variety of not-for-profit organisations - educational charities, faith and parents groups, perhaps mutual organisations - in order to drive the next phase of reform and root it firmly in civil society."

John Dunford, the general secretary of the Secondary Heads' Association, said Mrs Kelly's policy was flawed. "The proposal to close failing schools after a year is unrealistic, inappropriate and unhelpful," he said. "What they need is not more pressure from the Government but a well-targeted programme of support."

(Telegraph, 7 September 2005)

Children's attainment is boosted if they attend socially mixed schools, researchers at Heriot-Watt University have found. From their research into the link between home ownership and attainment, the authors of the study have concluded that if children from middle-class backgrounds attend school with predominantly children from the same background they will do less well than if the school has a social mix. The same applies for children from deprived homes who attend school alongside children in similar circumstances.

Noah Kofi Karley, who carried out the study with Glen Bramley, said, "The important thing is the social mix - they learn from each other. They tend to benefit from each other in a way that slightly improves upon their education. The reason is that education is not necessarily about kids being in school and learning alongside other people like themselves - it is about learning about various cultures. Where the social mix is a full mixture, kids tend to do very well, rather than if they are from middle-class backgrounds alone or very poor backgrounds."

Dr Karley and Professor Bramley, who work at Heriot-Watt University's Centre for Research into Socially Inclusive Services (CRSIS), conclude that the creation of socially mixed housing areas, which include relatively high proportions of owner-occupied homes, improves the "social capital" of an area by creating a greater sense of community. The study also found that the effect of home-ownership is stronger in the primary school sector than in secondary. The report, carried out on behalf of the Scottish Executive Education Department, states, "A stronger test of the home-ownership hypothesis is to see whether schools with more home-owner children help all their pupils to do better, including the children who are probably not from homeowner families. Our attempt to test this is not perfect but it does appear to support the hypothesis in the primary sector, but not in the secondary sector."

(TESS, 29 July 2005)

The jury is still out over whether pupils make more progress in comprehensive or grammar schools. League tables published in January 2005 looked for the first time at how young people's results improve between 11 and 16. Not a single grammar school features in the top 10 secondaries ranked according to this "value-added" measure, which compares pupils' GCSE results with the scores they achieved in their key stage 2 tests at 11.

Eight of the top-performing schools are comprehensives, while two are state special schools. The top-ranked grammar, Woodford County High, is placed 11th overall. However, grammar schools fill 38 out of the top 100 spots, and 98 of the top 300. These figures suggest grammars, which make up just 166 of England's 3,700 secondaries, are disproportionately represented near the top of the tables.

(TES, 14 January 2005)

Grammar schools will be excluded from government plans to make it easier for popular secondaries to expand, even if there is a strong demand for places. The Government has faced criticism over grammar schools after figures showed the number of pupils has increased by 9,873 since 1999.

Brian Wills-Pope, chair of the National Grammar Schools Association, said: "The evidence has shown that grammar schools are popular with parents and it is disappointing that the Government has not recognised that." He said the association would make representation on the issue but expected to be "banging our head against a brick wall". Grammars, along with other schools, will still be able to submit plans for expansion to local school organisation committees under existing procedures.

(TES, 22 October 2004)

London's schools' tsar has called for an end to selection in the capital and the introduction of common, city-wide admissions criteria. Tim Brighouse, the government-appointed chief adviser for London schools, was speaking at the National Union of Teachers "manifesto" for London schools in September 2004. The union welcomes the plan for a coordinated London admissions system, with a common application form and timetable from 2005. But it also argues for a common admissions criteria across the capital without any form of pupil selection, so that schools can achieve a more socially-balanced intake. Professor Brighouse said such "systemic" changes were not part of the brief he had been given by the Government but that the NUT was right to campaign on the issues. "I do think a common admissions system will make it far better," he said. "Until somebody tackles admissions criteria it will remain the case that schools choose children rather than children choose schools."

(TES, 8 October 2004)

Able children who just fail to get into grammar schools are least well served by the comprehensive system, according to a study. Selective schools are better than comprehensives at meeting the needs of pupils on the borderline between the two, the researchers say. Children achieve "much better results" in the tests for 14-year-olds and gain higher GCSE grades when they are educated in grammar schools instead of those catering for all abilities. Research by the National Foundation for Educational research (NFER) found that pupils at the top of the ability range did equally well at grammars and comprehensives. But those who narrowly scraped through entrance tests leapt ahead of those of similar ability educated at comprehensives. The findings are based on a series of surveys comparing the outcome at different types of schools, using value-added data about pupils' performance at the ages of 11, 14 and 16 provided by the Department for Education, school profiles and information collected by Ofsted.

"Contrary to some claims, selective education appears to have very little or no impact on pupils a the top of the prior attainment range. The most able pupils make at least as much progress in comprehensive schools," says the report. "The main impact of grammar schools appears to be on those pupils at the bottom end of their intake range, who achieve much better results than those in the same ability group who narrowly fail." Sandy Schagen, a principle research officer at the NFER, said the difference between the achievement of borderline children had "emerged very starkly in every piece of research we have done on this topic".

(Telegraph, 8 September 2004)

Poor children are only half as likely as richer ones to get into grammar schools, even when tests show they are of equally high ability, according to research at Bristol University which identifies a "huge gulf" between the general mix of pupils and the social range in grammar schools. In the 19 local education authorities in England that keep the 11-plus, 6% of the pupils eligible for free school meals attend grammar schools compared with 26% of other children.
The disadvantage applies even in the brightest children, the university's centre for market and public organisation reports. Of those with top test scores at 11, 32% of those eligible for free meals attend grammar schools compared with 60% of the better off. But the study also finds that selection does work in favour of bright pupils from poor backgrounds, provided they can get into a grammar school in the first place. This small minority do "exceptionally well", achieving nearly eight grade points more than comparable pupils in non-selective schools: the equivalent of eight GCSEs being raised from a C to a B. But those not in grammar schools do slightly worse than their peers in non-selective LEAs.
On average, therefore, there is little difference in achievement between pupils in Leas retaining selection and those without, though the beneficiaries vary.

(Guardian, 1 September 2004)

The report accused both supporters and critics of grammar schools of exaggerating their case. "On average there is little difference between pupils in local education authorities that still have selection and similar pupils in comparable non-selective Leas" it said. But it found that selective systems make big differences to individual pupils. Supporters of the 11-plus are correct to claim that the few bright pupils from poor backgrounds who succeed in gaining a grammar school place benefit from selection. Their overall GCSE results are an average of eight grades higher than their peers in non-selective authorities. Overall, grammar school pupils do "very well" compared with similar children in non-selective areas. But this advantage for the 25% is balanced by the disadvantage for the 75% who do not. Selection creates large concentrations of poor children in individual schools and this reduces overall attainment, the study found.

Selective Education: Who benefits from Grammar Schools? By Adele Atkinson and Paul Gregg is available at www.bris.ac.uk/Depts/CMPO/press/pr0209041.doc

(TES, 3 September 2004)

Church schools outperform their secular neighbours because they select their pupils, not because they have a religious ethos, the admissions body has said. It turned down a request from Southborough boys secondary modern in Surrey to become a Church of England school. Southborough said the new Christian ethos would raise standards. But the Office of the Schools Adjudicator said that the only reason faith schools beat their secular neighbours was because of a practice of "selection from church-going families".

In a report released in September 2004, Alan Parker, the schools adjudicator, rejected the application and said: "The argument advanced by the school that a religious ethos will have a beneficial academic effect is speculative." The Diocese of Southwark, which supported the school's bid, has written to the adjudicator asking for further evidence to support his view that church schools select.

(TES, 24 September 2004)

The number of pupils being taught in grammar schools has increased by more than a third in the past decade, despite Labour pledges to halt selection. Pupil numbers in grammar schools have risen from 111,846 in 1993 to 150,750 in 2004. This is the equivalent of opening 46 new grammar schools. The figures were revealed by Education Secretary Charles Clarke.

TES, 26 March, 2004

Opponents of selective education were celebrating this week after comprehensives outperformed grammar schools in new "value-added" tables of achievement between the ages of 14 and 16. Only 3 grammars featured in the top 100 secondaries ranked according to progress made by pupils during key stage 4.

The results contrast vividly with the key stage 3 league tables, published last month, which ranked schools by pupils' progress from 11 to 14. In those, grammars filed 44 of the top 49 places - and dominated national media coverage. Value-added measures attempt to gauge how much a school improves pupils' performance. They compare a pupil's results with those of children across the country who start out with similar ability levels.

It is still difficult, though, to get a complete view of a secondary school's contribution to a pupil's education throughout the years running up to GCSE as there is not yet a national 11-16 value-added measure.

The Government has attempted to move towards this with a measure based on a smaller number of schools. It has produced a separate list of the 133 secondaries with the best value-added scores at key stage 3, and then ranked them by how much extra value they add during key stage 4. Again, comprehensives appear to do well on this measure. David Miliband, the schools minister, pointed out that they filled 97 of the top 133 places.

However, supporters of selection by ability will also point out that 27 of the 133 were grammar schools. As grammars account for just 166 of the country's 3,700 secondaries, this is a strong representation.

(TES, 16 January 2004)

Grammar schools bring best out of all children

Tony Blair's pledge to transform "bog standard" comprehensives suffers a severe set back today with the publication of rankings showing the superiority of grammar schools. In an embarrassment to opponents of selection, the first league tables to assess the quality of teaching in state secondary schools, as distinct from the raw ability of pupils, is dominated by grammars.

Out of the top 20 schools in the "value-added" table, which records improvements by pupils aged between 11 and 14, only St Gregory's Catholic College, Bath, is a comprehensive. The findings also suggest that grammar schools are better at retaining the interest and motivation of pupils - in particular boys - as they switch from primary to secondary schools.

The Conservatives, seizing on the findings, said that Labour should stop undermining grammar schools, and reconsider restrictions on selection in the state sector.

The table compares the average performance of pupils at 14 (Key Stage 3) with other pupils who had the same prior achievement at age 11 (Key Stage 2).

(The Times, 17 December 2003)

More kids make the grade in test at 14

More teenagers than ever are getting good grades in English, maths and science, it was revealed last night. The number of children hitting key targets in maths rose from 67% to 71%. In English, the figure was up two to 69% and in science the pass rate was one point higher at 68%. Grammar schools still dominate the top places in the league tables, but there were improvements across the board.

(The Mirror, 17 December 2003)

More secondary school pupils have been put in ability sets since Labour came to power. Data from the Office for Standards in Education suggests that the proportion of classes which are setted has risen from 34.2% to 38.6% between 1996/1997 and 2001/2002.

(TES, 12 December 2003)

Divisive setting at six in Scottish schools

Children as young as 6 are now routinely divided into ability groups in maths, spelling and writing, according to a major study. While many education authorities are keen on the move, the researcher in charge suggests it could reinforce divisions between children.

Research across Britain has previously revealed that grouping by broad ability has no effect on pupils' attainment, but the majority of Scottish primaries appear to be disregarding the evidence in their drive to lift results. The survey into setting and broadbanding, carried out by Lorna Hamilton of Edinburgh University, show that schools have taken the advice of the inspectorate to heart and introduced setting at a far younger age. The inspectors originally invited schools to consider setting in P6 and P7 but primaries have extended the practice in the last four years under pressure to raise attainment in core work.

First findings gleaned from local authorities suggest most schools will be using some form of grouping. But two authorities said their schools did not use setting as they were opposed to what they believed was its negative impact. They preferred broadbanding as a means of limiting ability. DR Hamilton told the Scottish Educational Research Association conference in Perth that setting and broadbanding are almost interchangeable terms. Setting tended to be confined to narrower ranges of ability within a class whereas broadbanding may pull in top and upper middle pupils in one group and lower middle and low achieving in another.

Evidence from authorities indicates that pupils are divided after taking standardised or curricular tests. "People try to suggest that the testing is a simple measure of attainment and not of ability but people inevitably link the two together and have a hierarchical notion of what ability is. I think it reinforces the ideas of some kind of innate ability and intelligence and, in those terms, it seems to involve some limitation rather than potential. Does it lower expectations? And what about the impact on children in the lower groups? There is a disproportionate number of boys, pupils from ethnic minorities and pupils from lower socio-economic groups." DR Hamilton revealed. She suggested there could be long-term effects on the self-esteem of pupils in lower ability groups if they are divided early in primary. It could also reinforce social class divisions.

Local authorities, however, insist there are numerous benefits, not least for pupils who report positively on the experience. Less able pupils are said to do better because there is less anxiety. Pupils are able to concentrate more, although authorities are aware that lack of movement between sets may be a problem. Councils say there is a strong impact on pupil performance. There is more direct and interactive teaching and staff are able to dictate the pace of learning. Differentiation is said to be easier. There is also less preparation for the teacher. Setting further allows better tracking of progress, according to authorities.

One researcher - during questions - felt that primaries had been driven to setting by the national target-setting agenda. They improved results if they raised attainment of mid-ranking pupils. A second stage of the study, backed by the Scottish Executive, is taking detailed evidence from 1,000 primaries.

(TES Scotland, 5 December 2003)

Achievement gap between state and independent school narrows

The gap in achievement between independent and state comprehensive schools has narrowed since Labour came to power - by seven percentage points.

Forty-two per cent of comprehensive pupils gained five GCSE A*-C grades in 1997, compared with eighty per cent of those in independent schools. In 2003, fifty per cent of comprehensive pupils did so, and the proportion in independent schools was eighty-two per cent. That means 46,843 more state-school pupils gain five good GCSEs every year than would have done so had achievement remained at 1997 levels, but only 755 extra pupils do so in independent schools.

(TES, 28 November 2003)

End Child Poverty urges the end of grammar schools

Charities have called for the abolition of grammar schools, saying selection contributed to child poverty. The gap between the progress made at school by the poorer and better off was biggest in parts of England which had retained the 11-plus, they said.

The report by End Child Poverty, a coalition of charities including the NSPCC, the National Children's Bureau and Save the Children, also said independent schools should not receive help from the taxpayer.

Paul Ennals, chief executive of NCB, said poor children were two-thirds less likely to get at least five A* to C GCSE grades than those from affluent backgrounds.

(Telegraph, 25 March 2003)

Most five-year-olds appear to know that they are in a particular reading or maths group because of their abilities, suggesting that early setting in the basics can hit pupil motivation and self-esteem from the first months in Primary 1 (Reception in England).

The small-scale but in-depth study by researchers from Stirling University also shows that even in P1 teachers' views of attainment in reading vary widely. What is good or average in one school is not in another, a finding that underlines the Scottish Executive's current drive to improve assessment techniques and produce more robust evidence.

Christine Stephen and Peter Cope of the university's Institute of Education studied 27 children transferring from nursery school to primary. They found that children were able to explain about being grouped for particular activities, especially reading.

The study throws up significant transition problems between pre-school and P1, similar to the misunderstandings and difficulties between the last year of primary and the first year of secondary. The researchers describe several "discontinuities", not least the failure by primary teachers to acknowledge the learning children bring to P1 through the established curriculum framework for 3-5s.

Nursery staff and primary teachers tend to view progress differently, with nursery staff regarding pre-school education as a stage in its own right, not merely preparation for school. Transition records were often ignored. "Teachers lacked confidence in the information passed on from pre-school practitioners and made only limited use of the material available," the research notes.

Most children made a smooth transition, although some had difficulties. "There was no clear relationship between the nature of children's pre-school experience and the ease with which they transferred to school."

Moving On to Primary 1: An Exploratory Study of the Experience of Transition from Pre-School to Primary is published by the Scottish Executive in its Insight series.

(TESS, 21 March 2003)

Schools that group pupils by ability are guilty of "social barbarism" and pandering to middle-class parents, according to Stephen Ball in his inaugural lecture as Karl Mannheim professor of sociology of education at London University's Institute of Education.

He also said that setting and streaming of pupils is now widespread, not because of its educational value but because it allows well-off parents to separate their children from "others" whom they consider socially and intellectually inferior. He also said that it was politically attractive. Tony Blair had become the leading advocate of ability grouping because he knew the policy would win him middle-class votes.

Professor Ball said: "It is extraordinary and saddening that at a time when evidence-informed policy and practice is very much in vogue, that we are witnessing a wholesale return to the social barbarism of setting by ability."

Yet the overwhelming research evidence showed that grouping by ability was educationally damaging and led to greater inequalities between children. He said that studies showed that pupils in the bottom set lost out - they were taught by the youngest and least experienced teachers, with the highest rates of staff turnover. There was less interaction between these pupils than in the higher sets.

Pupils in the lower sets also had low self-esteem and were more likely to be alienated from school, disruptive or apathetic. This "demeaning and dispiriting" experience could affect them for the rest of their lives, he said.

He added that the emphasis since the 1980s on greater parental choice had given the middle classes greater power to push for the rights of their own children at the expense of the system overall.

Labour has enthusiastically backed setting in primary schools. Its 1997 White Paper reinforced advice issued by the Conservatives in 1993 that schools should introduce more setting by ability.

But research published in February 2003 indicated that primary schools are resisting this pressure as evidence showed that most still teach pupils in classes or mixed-ability groups, rather than in ability-based sets.

(TES, March 14 2003)

Rise of covert selection

Church and foundation schools are 25 times more likely to select pupils who will boost their league table ratings than council-run comprehensives. And the Government's new specialist schools are three times more likely to select pupils by stealth - "covert selection" - than ordinary comprehensives, according to a study of secondary admissions.

The study suggests interviews are used to exclude certain families. At these interviews parents might be questioned about their occupation. Church schools, which are supposed to stick to questions about religious background, ask if children will be "in harmony" with their ethos.

One in six church schools interview pupils, a practice to be banned in September 2005. And while fewer than one in 300 community schools selects any pupils for aptitude, one in 17 specialist schools and one in 11 foundation and voluntary-aided schools does. Church and foundation schools control their own admissions.

The study, looking at admissions rules at 95% of English secondaries, was carried out by Professor Anne West and Audrey Hind of the London School of Economics. They found community schools were most likely to have "fair" criteria and give priority to children with special needs.

Exploring the extent of overt and covert selection is available at www.risetrust.org.uk.

(TES, 7 February 2003)

Primaries resist setting

Primary schools in England are resisting pressure from the Government to introduce more setting by ability, according to research published in February 2003. In most schools pupils are still grouped by ability within their classes or taught in mixed-ability groups, rather than being taken from different classes to make up sets based on ability. This is despite Government guidance, which was first issued in 1993 and reinforced in Labour's 1997 White Paper, which said that primary schools should introduce setting as a way of raising standards.

The 1997 White Paper, Excellence in Schools, said: "Setting should be the norm in secondary schools. In some cases it is worth considering in primary schools." A 1999 report from the Office for Standards in Education said putting children as young as five in sets could help to raise standards.

Schools have been unwilling to reorganise their teaching without clear evidence that it would produce better results or more resources to make it possible, suggest researchers from London University's Institute of Education and the University of Sunderland. Their findings are based on a 1999 survey of 800 schools across England.

In the core subjects of mathematics and English, schools most often grouped children by ability within the class. In all other subjects, the most common arrangement was mixed-ability groups within mixed-ability classes.

Streaming, once the norm in larger primaries when preparing pupils for the 11-plus, was almost negligible.

"If governments wish to change practices in schools, it seems that exhortation alone will not suffice," say the researchers. Schools' caution seem to be justified, they say. Recent evidence suggests that ability grouping does not raise standards and can damage pupils' personal and social development.

Education Studies vol. 29, no. 1, March 2003 www.tandf.co.uk

(TES, 7 February 2003)

London should be selection free, according to the Labour think-tank the Institute of Public Policy Research, amid fresh evidence that the gap between the haves and the have-nots has widened. The IPPR is calling for grammar schools to be abolished and specialist schools barred from selecting by aptitude. It claims that competition and parental choice are failing low-achieving pupils and acting as a barrier to raising achievement.

It is calling on London's 33 local authorities to agree to a single admissions procedure at secondary level.

The findings are the result of a nine-month inquiry. Martin Johnson, IPPR research fellow, said: "Improving the social mix in schools is the best way of raising the achievement of those at the bottom while doing nothing to damage those at the top."

There are 164 grammar schools in England - 19 of them in London. Education Secretary Charles Clarke has suggested that councils which still have the 11-plus should examine its effect on standards.

Specialist schools - central to the Government's programme to raise secondary standards - can select up to 10% of pupils by aptitude. An analysis of official figures by the Education Network found one in five schools has an advantaged intake compared to its neighbours and has less than half the number of deprived pupils than would be expected. However, one in 10 faces concentrated deprivation with more than twice as many pupils on free school meals than is the norm for its LEA.

Polarisation is greater in areas with large numbers of church or selective schools and has risen slightly over the past year, according to the analysis by the local authority-funded body.

(TES, 31 January 2003)

Specialist schools are no better than standard comprehensive schools at helping their pupils progress, the Government's new value-added league tables reveal.

The value-added scores are based on the progress pupils make between 11 and 14 and between key stage 3 and GCSEs. Scores above 100 represent schools where pupils made more progress than average and vice versa.

Statistics from the Department for Education and Skills showed that its flagship specialist schools scored on average 100 between 11 and 14, while non-specialist schools scored 99.8. The difference between the two at GCSE was also negligible.

(TES, 24 January 2003)

Divide and you will divide again

International study shows comprehensives can produce social cohesion and good results - link to article on TES website at www.tes.co.uk.

(Source: TES website archive December 2002)

Comprehensives appear to be better than selective schools at reducing the achievement gap between social classes, according to research published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development through its PISA survey of student skills and knowledge in 30 countries.

Detailed analysis from an international survey shows that education systems which separate pupils at early ages show a stronger link between social class and academic achievement.

Countries which send pupils through different types of programmes within a school, or send them to different types of school, also tend to produce lower reading performances, researchers say.

Educationalists warn care must be taken when changing the British comprehensive system to make sure that increased specialisation does not have the same effect.

An OECD spokesman said: "School systems that differentiate between pupils through institutionalised streaming at early ages tend to produce lower reading performances while failing to moderate the impact of social background on student attainment."

(TES, 15 November 2002)

Specialist schools add significantly more value to their pupils' education than ordinary comprehensives, a study has revealed.

Research published by the Technology Colleges Trust showed that non-selective specialist schools performed 4% better in their GCSEs last year than was predicted, given their results when they were 11. Comprehensive pupils performed 1% below their predicted average GCSE grade.

For the first time, the key stage 2 results of 500,000 11-year-olds were compared with the students' GCSE scores. Researchers predicted from results at 11 what GCSE results they could expect five years later.

Professor David Jesson of the University of York, who led the research, said the data put an end to the argument that specialist schools achieved better results simply because they attracted more able pupils. "The figures are not trivial - the national improvement in GCSEs is only 1% a year, so that's like four years of advantage," he said.

(TES, 3 May 2002)

Grouping pupils by ability does not automatically raise standards of achievement, a major survey of the research on setting has concluded. The findings call into question the Government's endorsement of setting in secondary schools. The 1997 White Paper, Excellence in Schools, recommended setting as a way of raising standards. But the survey's author, Sue Hallam, of London University's Institute of Education, said most pupils should spend the bulk of their time in mixed-ability classes.

Her study reviews the literature on ability groupings from the first studies in 1919 to 2001 and looks at research evidence from Europe, the USA and the Far East. Where grouping by ability is used, the study suggests, it should be based on attainment in that subject, not on general achievement or behaviour as this demotivates children in the lower ability groups. Setting should be made as flexible as possible by the use of parallel groupings and frequent assessments. And high status teachers should be allocated to lower sets.

The research survey shows that while setting tends to be beneficial for more able pupils in the top groups, pupils in lower sets tend to be taught a reduced curriculum, with little challenge or stimulation, and can easily become demoralised, disruptive and disaffected. DR Hallam said that this demoralising effect was not inevitable and could be overcome by putting good teachers in the lower sets - in contrast to the usual situation, in which the best teachers teach the top groups.

She says that teachers of mixed-ability classes need to do more than teach at whole class level to an "imaginary average child". She supports creating small groupings within mixed-ability classes, with each working at their own pace, and modular organisation of courses at secondary level.

Ability Grouping in Schools is available from the Institute of Education, price £6.95.

(TES, 26 April 2002)

Children of average ability make better progress in grammar schools than in comprehensives, but the wider impact of selection is overwhelmingly negative according to research from the National Foundation for Educational Research.

The report, which looks at the impact of selection on pupils in Slough, backs the findings of a national study published by the foundation in October 2001.

Both studies found that the most able pupils perform just as well, if not better, in comprehensives as in grammar schools. But border-line grammar school pupils - who may have passed their 11-plus by as little as one mark - do significantly better than children of similar ability at comprehensives.

The impact of the structure of secondary education in Slough and The impact of selection on pupil performance are available at www.nfer.ac.uk.

(TES, 15 February 2002)

Review group calls for abolition of 11-plus in Ulster

Radical proposals to reform education in Northern Ireland, announced this week, include scrapping the 11-plus and setting up a collegiate system of schools. The Burns Review Group, set up as an independent think tank, launched its report on the future of post-primary education at the end of October 2001.

The report calls for the abolition of the 11-plus and the end9ng of academic selection. This would be replaced by a system based on "informed parental preference". The report also proposes the development of a "pupils profile" assessment system plus the creation of a collegiate system of schools from Year 5. The collaborative network of schools will be made up of 20 collegiate groups - a mixture of Catholic, Protestant, Irish-speaking and integrated schools.

Gerry Burns, pro-chancellor of the University of Ulster and chairman of the review body, said: "The 11-plus tests are divisive, damage self-esteem, disrupt teaching and learning and reinforce inequality of opportunity. The collegiate system will assist in the encouragement of a social cohesion within which diversity in our society will be enriching and not divisive."

Education minister Martin McGuinness welcomed the report, but said that the 11-plus tests will still be held this year and in autumn 2002.

(TES, 26 October 2001)

Consultation has now been extended to June 2002 - for more information see the DENI website.

Pupils do better at grammar and secondary modern schools than at comprehensives, both overall and in most ability ranges, the most authoritative study of its type showed. The study's most striking conclusion was that children of average and above average ability at comprehensives fall a year behind those at grammar schools because their teachers fail to "create a climate of high achievement and aspirations".

Children of lower abilities also did "slightly better" at secondary moderns than comprehensives, the study found. Only among children of the highest ability was there any evidence that comprehensives performed as well as or better than selective schools, and even then it was not conclusive. The report, published by the National Foundation for Educational Research, which is funded by local education authorities, stopped short of recommending the re-introduction of selection. Instead, it suggested that comprehensive authorities "may wish to consider whether it is possible to replicate the 'grammar school effect' in a totally different context".

Unlike much previous research, which claimed to show that the comprehensive system was superior, this study measured the progress pupils made in different kinds of schools over the five years from 11 to 16.

Because the data does not yet exist to carry out a single analysis of pupils' progress from key stage 2 to GCSE, the researchers, Ian and Sandie Schagen, studied two separate groups - one from key stage 2 in 1997, and one from key stage 3 in 1998 to GCSE in 2000. They compared the value schools added in three types of local education authority: those with fully comprehensive systems; those with up to 20% of secondary pupils in grammar schools (low selection); and those with more than 20% in grammar schools (high selection).

Studying the progress pupils made from the end of key stage 2 (age 11) to key stage 3 (age 14), the researchers found that the selective authorities achieved significantly better results overall than comprehensive ones. In particular 14-year-olds in grammar schools were a year ahead of pupils of the same ability who attended comprehensive schools, while those at comprehensives did no better than those at secondary moderns.

The report said: "The challenge for comprehensive schools will be to create a climate of high achievement and aspirations so that their pupils of average or above-average ability perform at the level reached by those in grammar schools." 

(Daily Telegraph, 19 October 2001)

Scottish ministers have been urged by a team of researchers to stick with mixed-ability teaching if they want inclusive schooling to succeed.

The academics from the Institute of Education at the University of London, were commissioned by the Scottish Executive to review the research about inclusive schooling, on issues ranging from special needs to teaching strategies.

Their findings, based on studies in Britain and abroad, are unequivocal. "Inclusive classroom structures and practices involve mixed-ability teaching." Carol Campbell, who led the eight-strong research team, said evidence stretching back to the 1960s had been looked at and the message was consistent.

Subject setting and streaming by ability hands advantages to those at the top whose attainment increases. "But those at the bottom will not increase their attainment at the same rate or to the same level. So the overall effect is to depress attainment and therefore undermine inclusive approaches."

(TESS, 12 October 2001)

Education Minister Martin McGuinness described the Post-Primary Review conducted in Northern Ireland as the single most important education issue and probably the biggest local education debate in the last 100 years. He explained that the objective of the review "is not simply about when or how to test, to select or not to select, to follow the academic or the vocational route. It is about enabling all our children to realise their full potential as individuals through their own strengths and talents. It is, in essence, about cherishing our children equally."

The Review of the Curriculum is being conducted by the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment. Martin McGuinness explained that it "aims for a more skills cased curriculum which will improve motivation and achievement and have the confidence of teachers, parents, pupils, employers and the wider public. I would encourage teachers to participate in the ongoing consultation to help ensure that the revised curriculum will be the best that can be provided for all our children."

The review of the curriculum is due to be completed in time to introduce the new curriculum by September 2003.

(Northern Ireland Executive Information Service - Department of Education 4 May 2001)

Specialist and selective schools are hampering social mobility and could lead to a more divided education system, according to researchers. DR Stephen Gorard, professor of social sciences at Cardiff University said new evidence showed such schools had a "privileged" intake and that their catchment areas were more segregated socially and economically. "They are acting against social mobility," he said. Policy makers would have to weigh up the advantages of these schools with the risk that they could lead to a more segregated school system.

DR Gorard and DR John Fitz carried out the study, Investigating the Determinants of Segregation between Schools, as part of wider research on school choice. Their overall study looks at how the school system has changed since the 1988 Education Reform Act gave families the right to express a preference for any school they want. The researchers are analysing information on around 8 million pupils from 25,000 schools in England and Wales over the past 12 years.

The paper will be presented at an Institute for Public Policy Research Seminar on How Special are Specialist Schools? The seminar will explore the implications of two proposals - one in the recent DfEE Green Paper to increase the number of specialist schools from 538 to 1,500 and another in the Labour Party manifesto to allow all secondary schools to develop a specialism.

DR Gorard added that his study showed that, in general, Leas with a higher proportion of foundation, selective or specialist schools had higher "levels of socioeconomic stratification between schools."

The findings contrast with DR Gorard's earlier research on school choice, which showed that overall segregation between schools had been declining since 1988.

 (TES, 25 May 2001)

Has comprehensive education betrayed generations?

The Betrayed Generations - Standards in British Schools, by DR John Marks, accuses teachers, politicians and education authorities for bolstering up a comprehensive education system "in which too many children are condemned to a life of failure."

He argues that the rate of A level improvement in England and Wales slowed after the introduction of comprehensive schools in 1969. Although the introduction of GCSEs did boost results, the report argues that this was because the new exams were easier to pass - not because standards had risen.

DR Marks published studies in the early 1980s suggesting that pupils did better in grammar and secondary modern schools than in comprehensives. He is now secretary of the education group of the Centre for Policy Studies, a right-wing think-tank.
The Betrayed Generations - Standards in British Schools 1950 - 2000 can be obtained from the Centre for Policy Studies. Tel 020 7222 4488

(TES, 12 January 2001)

Retaining the 11 plus exam fuelled the bitterness dividing society in Northern Ireland according to a report handed to George Howarth, the Direct Rule Minister for Education in February 2000.

The report falls short of saying that the selective system has driven young people into paramilitary organisations but there are those in the most deprived areas who say that the 11-plus has helped fill the ranks of gunmen.

The report's research team, which united all the Northern Ireland teaching establishments headed by Tony Gallagher. Professor of Education at Queen's University and Alan Smith, Unesco Professor of Education at the University of Ulster. Over 15 years, the two have collaborated in many reports, all showing the 11-plus to be divisive.

Mr Howarth is expected to stick to the publication timetable, but without the Assembly there is no elected forum to debate it.

(Guardian & TES, 7 and 14 January 2000)