School socio-economic composition and pupil grouping in the primary
school
Ruth Lupton, Amelia Hempel-Jorgensen, Frances Castle, Ceri Brown1 and
Hugh Lauder2
Introduction
This paper is an early output from the ESRC-funded HARPS project3; an
interdisciplinary project investigating the extent to which school composition
affects pupils’ experience of school and their academic outcomes, and the
mechanisms by which school composition works.
The particular contribution of this paper is to shed light on grouping practices in
primary schools and their relationship to school composition. Much of the
existing research on school composition is focused at the school level, with a
smaller number of studies looking at class-level effects. We would argue that it
continues to be important to investigate school-level composition effects.
Influences of school mix on school resources, management and organisation, on
overall approaches to curriculum, pedagogy, extra-curricular activities and
learning support, and on social relations and friendship groups, are all factors
that likely operate at school level, and we expect to report fully on these in the
coming year as we begin to analyse the HARPs data. However, it follows that if
students are systematically organised into groups for a significant part of their
school day, the composition of these groups will also influence approaches to
curriculum and pedagogy, the allocation of learning support resources, the nature
of learning peer groups, and very possibly the formation of friendship groups
outside the classroom. The more that grouping is used, the more school
composition research will need to take account of the configuration and use of
groups. Moreover, thinking about the potential importance of groups requires
school composition researchers to engage with sociological perspectives on the
interaction of pupil social class, gender and ethnicity with the processes and
practices of schooling: the sociology of knowledge and the curriculum (Bernstein
1971, Whitty 1985); socio-linguistics and pedagogic practice (Bernstein 1990);
the impact of policy and performative regimes in the differential valuing of pupils
from different social class backgrounds (Ball 2003, Gillborn and Youdell 2000,
Gewirtz 2002); and the importance of economic, cultural and social capitals in
shaping pupils’ schooling experience (Bourdieu 1997, Coleman 1988) .
This paper reports on the use of grouping in the twelve schools that the HARPs
project has been studying in depth. Our purpose here is to use our intricate
knowledge of these schools and classrooms to answer two preliminary questions:
1
All from the Institute of Education, University of London
University of Bath
3
Hampshire Research with Primary Schools:ESRC RES-000-23-0784
2
1
•
•
To what extent do similar pupils in schools of similar and different
composition experience different grouping strategies?
How, in practice do these grouping arrangements mediate pupils’
experience of school, year groups and class composition?
This is an early paper – in many ways a basis for further analysis – and we return
to the implications of the findings for our future work at the end. However, three
initial comments may be useful to locate the work within the wider project and to
establish its scope.
First the focus here is on social class. Our study area has a predominantly white
British population, which does not permit a full analysis of ethnic group
differences. We also recognise that other compositional factors, such as age,
gender, prior attainment, and learning and behavioural needs, are likely to be
relevant and may mediate social class patterns. All are part of the HARPs
investigation and will be reported on in more detail at a later stage.
Second, this paper simply aims to map grouping practices and their impact on
the placement of pupils in particular groups, in relation to social class. A next step
is to use the wealth of qualitative and quantitative data available to us to
investigate the extent to which this affects pupil progress and the way in which
pupils themselves interpret and react to group placement. At this stage we are
elucidating patterns of grouping not making statements about how and why they
matter.
Third, we recognise the possibility that grouping practices of schools are
themselves a product of school composition, with headteachers and staff
organizing groups in ways which seem best to respond to the particular mix of
pupils in the school. If this is the case, we are faced with a complex reality in
which composition affects grouping, and grouping influences the effect of
composition. We explore this possibility in another paper in this symposium.4
The HARP Schools and their Grouping Practices
The Schools
The qualitative element of the HARPs project studies twelve primary and junior
schools, all in one district of Hampshire, and of differing socio-economic
composition. We examine the ways in which composition impacts on school
processes and pupils’ experiences through observation of lessons and informal
interactions around the school and playground, interviews with heads, teachers
4
Lauder (this symposium) Politics and Professionalism: The Question of School and Teacher Autonomy in
Relation to Grouping Practices.
2
and pupils, and the collection of samples of work. We have studied the schools
throughout the academic year 2005/6, following a cohort of pupils who are now in
Year 4 (aged 7 or 8). Socio-economic composition of the schools is determined
in two ways: from the school-level FSM indicator and also on the basis of the
questionnaire to the parents of the Y4 cohort, when these pupils were in Y3. This
methodology and its relationship to the wider project is discussed elsewhere in
this symposium.
Broadly speaking, the schools fall into three groups (Table 1). Four are ‘low
socio-economic status (SES)’ schools, located in large social housing estates
and with a high proportion of parents in working class occupations and very few
in professional jobs or with higher level qualifications. The names we have given
to these schools are Aspen, Beech, Cedar, and Willow. Three are ‘high SES’
schools: Juniper, Chestnut and Rowan. All of these serve villages in rural areas
and have a significant proportion of parents in professional jobs and very few in
working class occupations. The remainder, the ‘mixed SES’ schools, all have
some Y4 parents in professional occupations (typically about one-fifth), and
rather more in working class occupations (typically about one third). The largest
group is of other children, from middle class or lower middle class families with
parents in supervisory, managerial or associate professional occupations.
Aggregate prior attainment levels for children entering these schools tends to
reflect socio-economic composition, but there are significant local variations and
local contextual factors, such as military bases and traveller sites, that are also
important. The three-way typology is not intended as a fully explanatory schema,
but as a simple device with which to investigate socio-economic composition
effects at a relatively crude level.
Grouping Strategies
Our first question was the extent to which grouping practices differed between
schools, such that similar pupils experience different arrangements. The very
clear answer was that there is an array of different grouping practices. Table 2
sets out the arrangements for each of the schools. The table shows two levels of
grouping. First , in bold whether pupils are placed into ability sets for different
subjects, then underneath this in normal type, whether they are grouped within
the class or set, into smaller learning groups.
Only in three schools of the twelve (Aspen, Fir and Hollybush) did we find the
arrangement that is perhaps the popular notion of primary school grouping:
mixed ability classes for all classes with some in-class grouping. All of the other
schools were setting by ability at least in one subject. Regular setting was more
common in numeracy (6 schools) than literacy (3 schools). No school employed
setting for specific subjects other than literacy and numeracy (although as we will
3
see, in mixed-age schools, some pupils were in ability-grouped ‘streams’ for
these subjects).
These arrangements, on face of it, were not related to socio-economic
composition, in the sense that schools of similar composition had similar
grouping practices. In a later paper5 we argue that there are more subtle
influences of composition on grouping. However, more obvious resource
considerations seemed to be at play in the first instance.
The arrangements were most complex in the seven schools that had cohort sizes
that demanded mixed year registration classes i.e they did not have sufficient
pupils in each cohort to make a full class in each year, or they had too many for
one class in a particular cohort, so classes had to be combined under one
teacher for registration and for subject teaching. Two of these – Hollybush and
Chestnut, had mixed ability registration classes across the two years. Hollybush
then retained these classes for all subjects, while Chestnut re-set the pupils for
numeracy and literacy.
The remainder of the mixed age schools (the majority) organised their
registration classes by ability. In a situation where there were two teachers for
three years, for example, it seemed to make sense to these schools to group
higher attaining pupils from one year with lower attaining pupils from the year
above, or some similar combination. We have referred to this in the table as
having ‘streams’ and indeed, in three of these schools (Beech, Juniper and
Rowan), the usual definition of streaming applies – that children were taught in
their ability-grouped registration classes for all subjects. The other ‘streamed’
schools, Laburnam and Cedar, re-set pupils for some subjects, thus they are not
streamed in the classical sense. Laburnam had an unusual situation of grouping
lower attaining pupils from Y4 with lower attaining pupils from Y3, but because
sets were used for numeracy and literacy, this arrangement only came into play
for other subjects: about 50% of the time spent in school.
In part, decisions were made as a result of educational philosophy and
experience. Some headteachers were committed to ability grouping, and cited
advantages for lower attaining pupils of being in groups where they could shine.
Others argued that National Strategy objectives determined arrangements. For
example, at Chestnut, where registration classes were in mixed ability for Y3 and
y4, and numeracy classes set across Y3 and 4, the headteacher felt that literacy
objectives could be more easily taught to a separate top Y4 set than to mixed
Y3/4 classes or sets. However, resources were also relevant. We note that of
the three schools that streamed at registration and retained these streams for all
subjects were very small schools, with twenty pupils or fewer in the Y4 cohort.
‘Streaming’ does not necessarily imply any particular educational philosophy,
5
Lauder, H. et al. (this symposium) Politics and Professionalism: The Question of School and Teacher
Autonomy in Relation to Grouping Practices.
4
more often a pragmatic decision based on school resources. At Beech, there
were two suitably qualified teachers for three year groups. The very small Y3
cohort (just 8 pupils) was grouped with the lower attaining Y4s, while the
remainder of Y4 was grouped in a registration class with Y5, and these classes
were retained for all subjects.
These arrangements can make for very different learning experiences for
different pupils. At Chestnut. Y4 pupils in the bottom numeracy set remain with
their class teacher for this subject, and have the additional support of no less
than three learning support assistants. However, they typically work to Y3
objectives rather the Y4 objectives (or above) of their counterparts in the top set.
Similar arrangements are in place for literacy. However, despite these setting
arrangements, for all other activities pupils remain in their registration classes
and socially pupils appear to mix with pupils from their classes and their sets and,
in some cases, with both younger and older pupils. If setting has an influence
here, it would seem to be through learning rather than social peer group
processes.
At Beech, the Y3/4 class and the Y4/5 class remain together for all subjects with
no further setting. Here, in contrast to Chestnut, pupils largely remain within their
classrooms and the Y4 pupils in one class rarely mix with the Y4 pupils in the
other for within classroom lessons, except during PPA time and various activities
involving visitors to the school (for example a number of sessions with
Community Wardens working on co-operation and collaboration). As it happens,
the classes are also very different. Both are well supported, one with a full-time
LSA and another with the presence of a non-class-based deputy head for much
of the time. However, the Y3/Y4 class has what might be described as a more
gentle and even ‘therapeutic’ environment. Equipment on display and in use in
this class included teddies with clothes for dressing, a dolls’ house and
construction toys. None of these things were apparent in the Y4/Y5 class. The
teacher described the Y4s in her class as ‘less able’. As we explain later, we
have particularly been following certain pupils in each of these schools, referred
to as the ‘matched pupil’. Our matched pupil in this class had achieved 2b in
reading and writing and 3c in maths in 2006 QCA tests. He had made progress,
for example, from 1a in SATs and was considered one of the more successful
pupils in the class. The teacher stated ‘kids here don’t go up by 2 sublevels’. By
contrast, our matched Y4 pupil in the Y4/5 class said it was ’quite hard’ being
with Y5 and described the work as ‘quite difficult’. He also described the top
group, all of whom were Y5s as ‘smart’, adding that he liked it when the Y5s were
out of the classroom ‘.. ‘cos they’re naughty. Y4s are better’. This pupil is
described by his teacher as ‘top in literacy and numeracy of the Y4s’. Learning
experiences are clearly very different. Nevertheless, we observed that despite
their separation for much of the time, the Y4 pupils from the 2 classes do mix
together socially and clearly know each other from their earlier schooling. Again,
compositional effects would appear to be working more through mechanisms
related directly to learning rather than through social peer group effects.
5
These mixed age arrangements tended to affect the smallest and the largest
schools: sometimes all-through primary schools. Aside from these, there was a
group of five mid-sized junior schools (between 200 and 240 pupils – or about 40
per year), all in urban areas, which had numbers suitable for two form entry in
each year and which therefore did not need to group across years. These were
Aspen, Willow, Ash, Fir and Ivy. All had two mixed ability Y4 classes for
registration. These schools did not face the difficulty of teaching different yeargroup objectives with the same teacher. However, arrangements still varied
significantly. Aspen and Fir had no setting at all, Ash set for numeracy and
literacy, and Willow and Ivy just for numeracy (except that Ivy set once a week for
literacy). Willow, Ivy and Cedar all took the interesting decision to set across Y3
and 4, Ivy for literacy once a week, Willow and Cedar for numeracy. We look at
some of the implications of these decisions for pupil experiences later in the
paper.
The prevalence of grouping arrangements is not surprising. Since the
introduction of high stakes testing, and particularly since the introduction of the
National Strategies for Literacy and Numeracy 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
the same time, increased emphasis on the achievement of targets and
requirements for guided reading in particular, have also led some schools to
retain or increase the extent of in-class grouping, either within mixed ability
classes or within. Like other studies that demonstrate the wide variation in
practices between schools (Hallam 2003), and the lack of transparency and
consistency in grouping practices (Davies et al 2003), our data demonstrates that
this is a potentially important area that school composition research should be
taking into account. Mixed age grouping seems a particularly important factor,
but a difficult one to trace quantitatively, since small schools with limited
resources and variable cohort sizes may make different decisions year on year
for pragmatic reasons, and benefits to pupils one year may be evened out the
following year. This is an area that needs intricate research.
The Mediating Effect of Grouping on School Composition
Our second question was whether, and how, grouping practices have a
mediating effect on school and year group composition. To explore this, we have
used the device of ‘matched pupils’ following Thrupp (1999) who argued that
although instructional, organisational and management processes can be (and
partly will be) explored by observing particular classes or the student body of the
school as a whole, these can be given a sharper focus by examining the
6
experiences of particular students exposed to these processes. In addition to
our general fieldwork, we decided to follow two pupils in each class in more
detail. To ensure that we were studying the experiences of similar sorts of pupils
in the different schools, we selected pupils who matched according to certain key
characteristics, and we refer to these pupils collectively as ‘the matched pupils’.
Since we might hypothesise that experience of school and of school composition
might vary depending on any number of factors, including age, gender, ethnicity,
mobility, attainment or social class, matching for a qualitative sample is an
inherently imprecise approach. Our approach in this case was to focus on two
variables, social class and attainment. First, we looked only at pupils whose SES
category, according to the questionnaire, was ‘average’, thus excluding
professional families and those of working class backgrounds. These are the
middle class/lower middle class pupils who dominate the ‘mixed SES’ schools to
which we referred earlier. Other work suggests that these middling pupils might
be most affected by school mix. While professional families might have the
cultural and economic capital to provide educational advantages beyond the
school, working class pupils might face a range of material and social challenges
that may mean that school mix is relatively less important or may even form a
subculture resistant to school. No such theories have been advanced about
pupils in the middle of the social class spectrum.
We then looked at their baseline attainment on entry to school (the only score
available to us at that time). In each school, we ranked average SES pupils in
order of closeness to the median score for average SES pupils in the district
sample. We were looking for average attainers among average SES pupils,
again aiming to screen out pupils whose performance might be exceptional in
either direction.
In each school, we selected pupils whose attainment was
closest to the median, until we had two in each class6, and provided that we had
parental permission. This produced a sample of 41 matched pupils, between two
and four in each school. Subsequently, however, KS1 data (at the start of Y3) for
these pupils became available – a more accurate assessment of the pupil’s
current attainment level than the baseline data and we have used this to identify
pupils whose attainment remained average throughout, and those who trajectory
has differed as they have moved through school. In due course, we will be able
to update this with test data from the end of Y3 for most pupils, and ultimately to
track progress through the year with end of Y4 data.
Here, we focus on just three of the schools: Ivy and Fir (both mixed SES) and
Willow (low SES). The large number of schools with mixed age classes has
challenged our original research design, which assumed that Year 4 pupils would
be learning with other Year 4 pupils. On this basis, we had collected socioeconomic data via the questionnaire only for that cohort. We must now explore
6
In three schools, Y4 pupils are distributed across three classes. For practical reasons, we could only
follow two classes per school, so some more average pupils were overlooked in order to have two in the
same class.
7
ways of identifying the characteristics of relevant Y3 and Y5 pupils in the mixedage classes, in order to continue the compositional analysis for those schools,
and they cannot be included here. Some of the other schools can also not be
included at this stage because of the impact of high pupil turnover on the
completeness of the SES data. The three-school analysis we present here is
thus indicative of the approach we will eventually take for all schools, rather than
being a complete picture in itself.
The matched pupils in these schools are identified in Table 3, by pseudonyms we
have given them. We can see that across these three schools, we have pupils
who are comparable to one another in their social class background, attainment
at KS1 and trajectory of attainment from baseline to KS1. Lucy (Willow), Laura
(Fir) and Callum (Ivy) were all high attainers at baseline and continued to be so at
KS1. Katie (Willow), Brandon (Fir) and Emma (Ivy) were middling attainers at
both levels, and Harry (Willow) and Abigail (Ivy) were middling attainers at
baseline but low attainers at KS1. It should be noted that the match in scores for
these two pupils is less exact than for the others. Studying the comparative
experience of these groups of pupils gives us a particularly sharp focus on
whether grouping does or does not mediate school and year group composition.
Registration Classes
Table 3, showing the matched pupils, also shows the composition of the Y4
cohorts as a whole, for each school. It shows that at Willow, the matched pupils
are in cohorts where the majority of children are from working-class families.
There are very few children from professional families, and a limited number from
backgrounds similar to those of the matched children. The mean attainment at
KS1, averaging all subjects, is 2.45. At Fir and Ivy, numbers of lower middle
class children are roughly similar to numbers of working class children, and there
are slightly more children from professional families, although still relatively few.
The mean KS1 attainment at these schools is higher than at Willow (2.85 and
2.70 respectively). This is the composition that we would deem to have an effect
if we read off composition from year group.
In the case of these schools, the picture is not significantly changed by the
division of the year group into registration classes. All three schools have mixed
ability Y4 registration classes, so attainment of classes reflects the attainment of
the cohort. The social class composition of these classes also appears to reflect
the composition of the Y4 cohort, as might be expected (Table 4). Thus the
matched pupils at Willow appear experience a more lower attaining and more
working-class environment than their counterparts at Fir and Ivy, even after the
split of classes (Table 4).
In these schools, the composition of the registration classes is important, since
they form the teaching groups for all subjects other than numeracy - 75% of the
8
school week. In other schools, with more setting, they might be less important.
As we shall see later, grouping within a mixed ability class may also make a
difference. We look next, however, to what happens when the pupils are
reorganized into groups for numeracy lessons, which make up about one quarter
of their timetable.
Setting for Numeracy
Grouping practices for numeracy vary. Fir continues to teach in registration
classes. Ivy and Willow both use mixed ability sets. Ivy has two sets for Y4, while
Willow combines Y3 and 4, and has four sets across the two years. In practice
most of the Y4 pupils are in the top or second set.
The effect on social class composition is shown in Table 5. The children at Fir
remain in their mixed ability, mixed social class groups. Meanwhile, the use of
setting at Ivy and Willow has the effect of rendering the higher sets slightly more
middle class and the lower sets slightly more working class than they would be if
the subject was taught in the mixed ability registration classes. At Willow, given
the overall low SES mix of this school and the very small proportion of
professional middle class families, the change is very small, probably
unremarkable. Both of the children from professional families in the cohort are
placed in the top set, while the proportion of working class children is as
expected.
At Ivy, there is slightly more change. While children from
professional homes are evenly distributed across the sets, more working-class
children are in the lower set than expected. Again, these are not profound
transformations but subtle shifts.
We look in turn at the effect this has on the high, middle and low attaining pupils
among our matched group.
At these two schools, the higher attainers in our sample [Lucy (Willow) and
Callum (Ivy)] are placed in top sets, as is Katie (Willow) of the middle attaining
children. Katie thus presents an interesting comparison with Emma at Ivy, whose
prior attainment is exactly the same. At Willow, middle-attaining Katie is a
relatively high achiever. Her maths score at KS1 places her equal 10th in the
year, with four other pupils. She is thus placed in a top maths set (of four sets).
At Ivy, middle-attaining Emma ranks as middle-attaining relative to the rest of her
year group. Although she ranks equal 18th in the year on her KS1 score, there
are fourteen other pupils sharing that same score. She is placed in the second
of two sets, where she is one of the higher attainers, although on the basis of
attainment at KS1 she is indistinguishable from several children in the higher set
and could easily change places. The decision means that she moves to a slightly
more working class and lower attaining group.
9
Perhaps the most instructive lesson to be learned from the Ivy example is that for
middle attaining pupils, grouping decisions can also have a significant impact on
who they learn with. Of the 14 children with the same KS1 maths score as
Emma, eight are in the top set and six are in the bottom set. These classes are
taught very differently. In the top set, there is a strong focus on formal learning
tasks 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 emphasizes fun. These differences are sufficiently marked to
be noticed by the pupils. Abigail, for example, in answering the question “which
set is it best to be in?” remarked:
“Probably [top set teacher’s] because she always quietens you down and
helps you get on with your work better and [bottom set teacher] is always
a bit behind because he does too much games”.
Our data is too crude to tell us whether children are ‘misplaced’. A range of
factors including changes in children’s performance since KS1, teachers’
assessment of children’s aptitude, and children’s behaviour and friendships might
all provide a more nuanced picture. However, teachers at this school do
recognise that practical constraints (the requirement for two classes of roughly
even size) mean that some children are placed in the lower set when they would
perhaps fare better in the higher one. This was specifically remarked upon by
one of the Y4 teachers who noted that:
“Were rolls smaller these ‘average’ children could probably all fit in the top
class but with a cohort of 60 this is impossible.” (top set teacher)
Notably, it is more likely to be the low SES children among the borderline case
who end up in the lower set.
More generally, the impact of grouping is very noticeable for the lower attaining
children. At Willow, Harry is in the third set of four. It is impossible to assess the
social class effect of this placement at the moment, since all but five of this group
are Y3 pupils, for whom we await data. However this in itself is significant.
Because of the decision at Willow to set across two years, Harry learns maths
mainly with Y3 pupils. All the Y4 pupils in this group except Harry are low SES.
By contrast, Abigail, at Ivy, is in the same lower set (of two) as Emma. Unlike
Harry, she learns with Y4 pupils and to Y4 objectives.
On the basis of these three schools, we can conclude that decisions on whether
or not to set, and whether to set across one or two years, may make a difference
to the social class composition of teaching and learning groups, although we
need more complete data across all the schools to make the picture clear. Suffice
to say at this point that if there are compositional effects arising from the social
class composition of learning groups – through peer relations, curriculum access
10
or pedagogical approaches – we cannot necessarily assume that we can read
them off simply by looking at year group composition.
The Importance of Within-class Grouping
Some of our twelve schools do adopt setting for literacy as well as numeracy
(see Table 2). However, this is not the case at these three schools, all of which
teach literacy in registration classes, except Ivy which sets once per week.
For literacy, grouping is done within the class. In each school, each class has
four or five groups of between four and seven children. Tables 6a-d show how
the matched pupils are placed within the groups, and the socio-economic
composition of the groups within which they are placed. This is a complicated
picture. We are working with small numbers, and the number of pupils for whom
SES is not known makes conclusions difficult. There are some small indications
that in-class grouping can have the effect of sorting pupils by social class, but this
is certainly not a consistent picture. The contrast between Callum at Ivy and
Laura at Fir is interesting, given that these schools have almost identical
composition overall. Both pupils are in top groups within their classes. Callum’s
group at Ivy consists of one pupil from a professional family, himself and two
others from lower middle class backgrounds, and one working class pupil. In
Laura’s group at Fir, there are three working class children, two lower middle
class, and none from professional families. Indeed, in this class, working class
children are more likely to be in the upper than lower groups.
Our observations also lead us to conclude that, even in schools where withinclass grouping alters social class composition the impact of within-class grouping
will vary not only as a result of the other factors that we mention, but as a result
of the way in class groups are used. This is consistent with other studies which
have shown substantial variation not only in the way groups are actually used for
learning (Hallam 2002, Hastings and Chantrey Wood 2002, McIntrye and Ireson
2002), but in how they are made transparent and used to establish social values
and hierarchies (Hallam 2002). In some cases, seating arrangements may be
as powerful as formal groups.
We observed that at Fir, while groups exist, they are relatively unimportant for
learning or social relations. Here, groups are not used to organise seating and
children only work with other children from their prior achievement group
occasionally when they do small group work. Laura, for example, normally sits
with a range of pupils most of whom are low SES and have (in some cases
significantly) lower mean KS1 scores, even though she is a top-group pupil.
At Willow, children are seated in their ability groups for literacy, although not for
numeracy. At Ivy, children are not formally grouped within their numeracy set.
11
However, the lower attaining children do tend to be placed in the same area or at
the same table. The rest of the class is seated on a mixed ability basis, except
children with behavioural difficulties who are seated at the front of the class. The
children with whom the matched pupils share a table or sit next to tend to be
much more similar to themselves than the children the matched pupils sit with in
Fir.
Children at Willow and Ivy are also given different work, according to the
numeracy set they are in, on a more systematic basis than at Fir where
differentiation of work is more ad hoc. At both Ivy and Willow, the grouping
hierarchy is also made more overt. At Willow, this is through the way groups are
named: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark and England (in descending order
of prior attainment). This is in contrast to Fir, where groups are named R, E, A
and D, where it could be argued that the hierarchy is less apparent. At Ivy the
prior achievement hierarchy is also evident in some aspects of class
organisation. For example, the classroom storage trays are labelled with the
group names in descending order so that the Ants’ (the top group) tray is at the
top and so on to the lowest group at the bottom.
These observations suggest that the effect of grouping on who children work with
in class is further mitigated by how groups are used, which differs between the
schools.
Conclusion
This paper offers a very preliminary analysis of the rich data that the HARPS
project holds on pupil grouping. It demonstrates that both setting and in-class
grouping practices are very prevalent in contemporary British primary schools,
highly variable, affected by a range of factors including school size and resources
and cohort size. Given the extent and range of practices, grouping is not a
question that school composition research can ignore. This initial work suggests
that setting by ability may mediate social class composition, but that effects may
vary in magnitude and be influenced by the overall composition of the school.
Clearly, the more homogenous the school, the less variation will be created by
setting. We cannot draw any conclusions about in-class grouping at this stage.
There are two obvious next steps. One is to complete and update the analysis
for all schools once further data becomes available: socio-economic data for Y3
and Y5 pupils and for new Y4 pupils, and attainment data for our matched pupils
at the end of y3. The other is to use our pupil progress data, observations, and
interviews with teachers and pupils to establish how, and how much, these
setting and grouping practices matter. Here we can link to a long-established
tradition of research into the impact of groups on student progress and self
concept and on the social cohesion of classrooms and schools, and to the wider
sociological literature to which we earlier referred. What is evident from this work
is that the ways in which schools use sets and to a much greater extent in-class
12
groups are highly variable. The detail of how groups (or not) are used in the
allocation of resources, for differentiating work or organizing learning, and for
establishing the social hierarchy of the classroom, are likely to be more important
than simply whether they exist or not.
Table 1: The Social Composition of the Schools
Occupation of Y4
parents (%)
Professional Working
Class
Education of Y4
parents (%)
Degree or Secondary
Higher
up to 16
School %
FSM 2005
Low SES
Aspen
Beech1
Cedar
Willow
15
0
6
5
48
31
55
58
5
8
0
2
55
46
66
50
28.1
46.1
25.0
22.4
High SES
Chestnut
Juniper
Rowan1
60
45
38
7
5
15
36
35
15
12
0
15
2.4
2.0
8.9
Mixed SES
Ash
Hollybush
Fir
Ivy
Laburnam
21
21
13
13
23
34
36
38
38
26
17
25
10
4
23
21
33
35
41
33
7.1
13.0
12.5
6.1
11.1
Notes:
1. Number of Y4 pupils is less than 15 at both these schools, therefore
questionnaire data has to be treated with caution
13
Table 2: Grouping Strategies
Roll
04/05
(Y4)
Registration
Classes
05/06
(Number of
Y4 pupils)
Low SES Schools
221
2 Y4
(40)
(51)
Name
Grouping literacy
Grouping numeracy
Grouping other
subjects
Aspen
Junior
Not set
Grouped within class
102
(13)
Beech
Primary
Not Set
Grouped within class
Not set Occasionally
with grouped within
class
Not set
Grouped within class
Cedar
Junior
Not set
Grouped within class
Set across Y3/Y4 –
Grouped within set
Willow
Junior
Not set
Grouped within class
Set across Y 3/4 –
Grouped within set
Not set
Mixed ability
seating
Not set
Grouped within
class
Not set
Grouped within
class
Not set
Some in-class
grouping, some
mixed ability
High SES
168
3 y 3/4
(42)
(48 Y4)
Chestnut
Junior
Set across y3/4 Grouped within set
Set across Y3/4 Grouped within set
149
(20)
1 Y3/4/5
Stream (20
Y4)
112
1 Y4/5
(13)
Stream (15
Y4)
Mixed SES
240
2 Y4
(47)
(56)
Juniper
Primary
Not set
Grouped within class
Not set
Grouped within class
Rowan
Primary
Not set
Grouped within class
Not set
Grouped within class
Ash
Junior
Set across Y4 –
Grouped within set
Set across Y4 –
Grouped within set
208
(40)
2 Y4
(45)
Fir Junior
Not set
Grouped within class
Not set
Grouped within class
169
(28)
3 Y3/4
(43 Y4)
Hollybush
Junior
Not set
Grouped within class
Not set
Grouped within class
214
(53)
2 Y4
(60)
Ivy Junior
Not set
Grouped within class
Except set across Y3
and 4 once per week
Set across y4 Grouped within set
343
(39)
1Y3/4 1Y4
Stream (43
Y4)
Laburnum
Primary
Set across Y4 grouped within set
Set across Y4 Grouped within set
282
(53)
201
(42)
1Y3/4 1Y4/5
stream (15
Y4)
2Y4 + 1Y3/4
stream (71
Y4)
2 Y4
(48)
Not set
Mixed ability
seating
Not set
Mixed ability
seating
Not set
Grouped within
class
Not set
Mixed ability
seating
Not set
Mixed ability
seating
Not set
Mixed ability
seating
Not set
Mixed ability
seating
Not Set
Some in-class
grouping some
mixed ability
14
Table 3: The Matched Pupils at Willow, Fir and Ivy
Pupil
Mean
Trajectory Parental Occupation of Pupils in
KS1 score Baseline
Yr 4 (number)
Profess WorkingOther
Not
(reading,
to KS1
2
iona
Class
known
writing,
(‘High’
(‘low (‘average
maths,
SES)
SES’)
SES’)
science)1
Pupils
Lucy
High (3.5) Mid-high
2
22
9
16
at
Katie
Mid (2.8)
Mid-mid
Willow
Harry
Low (1.9)
Mid-low
(low
Megan
Mid (3.1)
Mid-mid
SES)
Pupils
at Fir
(mixed
SES)
Laura
Brandon
Kyle
Ellie
High
Mid
Mid
High
(3.5)
(2.7)
(2.5)
(3.5)
Mid-high
Mid-mid
Mid-mid
Mid-high
4
15
16
4
Pupils
at Ivy
(mixed
SES)
Callum
Emma
Emily
Abigail
High (3.5)
Mid (2.7)
Mid (3.3)
Low (2.4)
Mid-high
Mid-mid
Mid-mid
Mid-low
7
20
25
8
Notes:
th
th
1: Pupils whose mean score fell between the 25 and 75 percentile of the distribution for
average SES pupils in the district are referred to as having a ‘mid’ score. ‘High’ and ‘low’ labels
identify outlying pupils.
2: SES is not known for pupils whose parents did not return the questionnaire (a small
percentage in each of the schools) and for those pupils who arrived at the school in Y4. Turnover
of pupils is highest in the low SES schools and presents difficulties for this analysis. At Willow for
example, the SES of approximately one-third of the current Y4 pupils is unknown. We are
examining ways to fill this data gap. Meanwhile, we rely on our interviews with staff, which tell us
that the socio-economic status of the new pupils does not differ significantly from that of the
pupils who were already in the school.
15
Table 4: SES composition of Y4 registration classes (numbers of pupils)
School Class Matched
pupils (focus
pupils
highlighted)
Willow 1
Megan
2
Lucy, Katie,
Harry
Fir
1
Laura,
Brandon
2
Kyle, Ellie
Ivy
1
Emma,
Abigail
2
Callum, Emily
Total #
children
High
SES
Average
SES
Low
SES
Unknown
SES
22
27
1
1
3
6
14
8
4
10
25
1
8
7
9
20
30
3
4
8
15
8
10
1
1
30
3
10
10
7
16
Table 5: SES composition of Y4 numeracy sets
School
Willow
(see note)
Set Matched
pupils
(focus
pupils
highlighted)
1
Megan, Lucy,
Katie
2
3
Harry
4
Fir
1
Same as
registration 2
groups
Laura,
Brandon
Kyle, Ellie
Ivy
1
2
Total #
High
children SES
Average Low
SES
SES
Unknown
SES
26
5
11
8
4
4
1
5
2
1
2
9
6
1
25
1
8
7
9
20
3
8
8
1
30
Emma,
Abigail
Callum, Emily 30
4
15
7
4
3
10
13
4
Note: At Willow, numeracy sets span Y3 and 4. Currently we only have data for the Y4 pupils.
Most Y4 pupils are in the top two sets.
17
Table 6a: SES composition of literacy groups in Fir
High Average Low Unknown MP
Group #
Pupils SES SES
SES
(highlow)
1
7
0
2
3
2
Laura
2
5
1
0
2
2
3
6
0
2
1
3
4
5
0
4
1
0
Brandon
Table 6b: SES composition of literacy groups in Ivy – class 1
Group #
High Average Low Unknown MP
pupils SES SES
SES
(highlow)
1
7
1
4
2
0
2
7
1
5
1
0
Emma
3
7
2
2
3
0
4
5
0
2
2
1
Abigail
5
4
0
2
2
0
Table 6c : SES composition of literacy groups in Ivy – class 2
Group #
High Average Low Unknown MP
pupils SES SES
SES
(highlow)
1
6
1
3
1
1
Callum
2
7
1
1
2
3
3
6
0
2
4
0
4
7
0
3
3
1
5
4
1
1
0
2
Table 6d : SES composition of literacy groups in Willow – class 2
Group #
High Average Low Unknown MP
SES
pupils SES SES
(highlow)
1
5
2
3
Lucy
2
6
1
2
1
2
3
6
1
5
4
4
4
5
6
2
2
2
Harry
18
References
Ball, S.J. (2003) ‘The teachers’ soul and the terrors of performativity’ Journal of
Education Policy 18(2) 215-228
Bernstein, B (1971) On the Classification and Framing of Educational Knowledge
in M.Young (ed) Knowledge and Control: new directions for the sociology of
education. London: Collier-Macmillan
Bernstein. (1990) The structuring of pedagogic discourse. London, Routledge
Bourdieu, P. (1997) Forms of Capital, in Halsey et al. Education: Culture,
Economy and Society. Oxford: OUP
Coleman, J.S. (1988) Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. American
Journal of Sociology 94 (supplement) S95-120.
Davies, J., Hallam, S., and Ireson, J. (2003) Ability Groupings in the Primary
Schools: Issues Arising from Practice. Research Papers in Education 18(1) 2003
pp 45-60.
Gewirtz, S. (2002) The Managerial School: Post-Welfarism and Social Justice in
Education. London: Routledge
Hallam, S. (2002) Ability Grouping in Schools: A Literature Review. London: IoE
Hallam, S. Ireson, J. Lister. V. Andon Chaudhury, I. and Davies, J. (2003) Ability
Grouping in the Primary School: A Survey. Educational Studies 29(1) 69-83
Hallam, S., Ireson, J. and Davies, J. (2004b) Primary Pupils’ Experiences of
Different Types of Grouping in School. British Educational Research Journal
30(4) pp 515-534.
Hastings, N. and Chantrey Wood, K (2002) Group Seating in Primary Schools: an
indefensible strategy? Paper presented at the Annual Conference of BERA, 1214 September 2002.
Gillborn, D. and Youdell (2000) Rationing Education: Policy, Practice, Reform
and Equity. Buckingham, Open University Press
Thrupp, M. (1999) Schools Making a Difference, Lets be Realistic! : School mix,
school effectiveness and the social limits of reform. Buckingham: Open University
Press
Whitty, G. (1985) Sociology and school knowledge : curriculum theory, research
and politics. London: Methuen
19