Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

It’s not which school but which set you’re in that matters: the influence of ability-grouping practices on student progress in mathematics

By Dylan Wiliam and Hannah Bartholomew

Abstract

The mathematics achievement of a cohort of 955 students in 42 classes in six schools in London was followed over a four-year period, until they took their GCSEs in the summer of 2000. All six schools were regarded by 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 1 grade at GCSE to nearly 3 grades. At the schools using small-group and individualised 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

Year: 2004
OAI identifier: oai:eprints.ioe.ac.uk.oai2:1155

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (2001). Ability grouping in education.
  2. (1997). Education and Employment
  3. (1986). Effects of ability grouping in British secondary schools.
  4. (1997). Experiencing school mathematics: teaching styles, sex and setting.
  5. (1997). Gender and fair assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. percent starting KS3 taking School Name type 5 A*-C Y10 score? GCSE description of intake A Alder mixed 45% 165 163 153 mainly white, middle & working class
  6. (1970). Hightown Grammar : the school as a social system. doi
  7. (1995). Markets, choice and equity in education.
  8. (1996). Mathematics achievement in the middle school years.
  9. (1992). Middle school ability grouping and student achievement in science and mathematics. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
  10. (2000). Negotiating identity in the community of the mathematics classroom Paper presented at
  11. (1998). Office for Standards in Education
  12. (2001). Positioning students in setted mathematics groups . Paper presented at British Educational Research Association 27th annual conference, held at
  13. (1996). Science achievement in the middle school years: IEA’s third international mathematics and science study.
  14. (2002). September) Ability grouping in the secondary school: effects on GCSE attainment in English, mathematics and science.
  15. (1997). Setting and streaming: a research review.
  16. (1999). Setting in stone? How ability-grouping practices structure and constrain achievement in mathematics.
  17. (1967). Social relations in a secondary school.
  18. (1992). Special needs and the distribution of attainment in the national curriculum. doi
  19. (1998). Streaming, setting and grouping by ability: a review of the literature.
  20. (1964). Streaming: an education system in miniature.
  21. (1978). Streams for the future? The long-term effects of early streaming and non-streaming—the final report of the Banbury enquiry.
  22. (2000). Students’ experiences of ability grouping—disaffection, polarisation and the construction of failure.
  23. (1998). Tell me with whom you're learning and I'll tell you how much you've learned: mixed ability versus same-ability Newbold, doi
  24. (2000). The construction of identity in secondary mathematics education. In
  25. (1992). The IEA study of mathematics III: student growth and classroom processes.
  26. (1984). The quality of pupil learning experiences. London, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  27. (2003). Tracking and mixed-ability grouping in secondary school mathematics classrooms: a case study. doi
  28. (1996). What do we know about the grouping of pupils by ability? A research review.

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.