There has been little research on pupils' experiences
of ability grouping. This study aimed to explore the perceptions of
primary-aged pupils regarding the purpose and practice of within and
between class ability grouping; their experiences of those practices;
and how their attitudes to school, self-perceptions and behaviour were
affected. The study was undertaken in six primary schools adopting different
combinations of grouping practices including streaming, setting, within-class
ability and mixed ability grouping. Six pupils, of high, moderate or
low ability, mixed in gender, in each Key Stage 2 class were interviewed
in each school. The findings showed that pupils were aware of how and
why they were grouped and accepted the rationales provided. Attitudes
towards school were not affected by grouping structures, but pupils'
awareness of their place in the pecking order and the nature of teasing
in the school were, although these were mediated by school ethos factors.
Abstract reproduced with permission of the Taylor &
Francis Group: www.tandf.co.uk/journals
The mathematics achievement of a cohort of 955 students
in 42 classes in six schools in London was followed over a 4-year period,
until they took their General Certificate of Secondary Education examinations
(GCSEs) in the summer of 2000. All six schools were regarded by the
Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) as providing a good standard
of education, and all were involved in teacher training partnerships
with universities. Matched data on Key Stage 3 test scores and GCSE
grades were available for 709 students, and these data were analysed
in terms of the progress from Key Stage 3 test scores to GCSE grades.
Although there were wide differences between schools in terms of overall
GCSE grades, the average progress made by students was similar in all
six schools. However, within each school, the progress made during Key
Stage 4 varied greatly from set to set. Comparing students with the
same Key Stage 3 scores, students placed in top sets averaged nearly
half a GCSE grade higher than those in the other upper sets, who in
turn averaged a third of a grade higher than those in lower sets, who
in turn averaged around a third of a grade higher than those students
placed in bottom sets. In the four schools that used formal whole-class
teaching, the difference in GCSE grades between top and bottom sets,
taking Key Stage 3 scores into account, ranged from just over one grade
at GCSE to nearly three grades. At the schools using small-group and
individualized teaching, the differences in value-added between sets
were not significant. In two of the schools, a significant proportion
of working-class students were placed into lower sets than would be
indicated by their Key Stage 3 test scores.
Abstract reproduced with permission of the Taylor &
Francis Group: www.tandf.co.uk/journals
80px.gif)
