School Composition And Pupil Grouping In The Primary School

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 2 University of Bath 3 Hampshire Research with Primary Schools:ESRC RES-000-23-0784

 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 year- group 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 class 6, 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 socio- economic 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 mixed- age 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 10 th 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 within- class 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 Education of Y4 School % parents (%) parents (%) FSM 2005 Professional Working Degree or Secondary Class Higher up to 16 Low SES Aspen 15 48 5 55 28.1 Beech1 0 31 8 46 46.1 Cedar 6 55 0 66 25.0 Willow 5 58 2 50 22.4

High SES Chestnut 60 7 36 12 2.4 Juniper 45 5 35 0 2.0 Rowan1 38 15 15 15 8.9

Mixed SES Ash 21 34 17 21 7.1 Hollybush 21 36 25 33 13.0 Fir 13 38 10 35 12.5 Ivy 13 38 4 41 6.1 Laburnam 23 26 23 33 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 Registration Name Grouping literacy Grouping numeracy Grouping other 04/05 Classes subjects (Y4) 05/06 (Number of Y4 pupils) Low SES Schools 221 2 Y4 Aspen Not set Not set Occasionally Not set (40) (51) Junior Grouped within class with grouped within Mixed ability class seating 102 1Y3/4 1Y4/5 Beech Not Set Not set Not set (13) stream (15 Primary Grouped within class Grouped within class Grouped within Y4) class 282 2Y4 + 1Y3/4 Cedar Not set Set across Y3/Y4 – Not set (53) stream (71 Junior Grouped within class Grouped within set Grouped within Y4) class 201 2 Y4 Willow Not set Set across Y 3/4 – Not set (42) (48) Junior Grouped within class Grouped within set Some in-class grouping, some mixed ability High SES 168 3 y 3/4 Chestnut Set across y3/4 - Set across Y3/4 - Not set (42) (48 Y4) Junior Grouped within set Grouped within set Mixed ability seating 149 1 Y3/4/5 Juniper Not set Not set Not set (20) Stream (20 Primary Grouped within class Grouped within class Mixed ability Y4) seating 112 1 Y4/5 Rowan Not set Not set Not set (13) Stream (15 Primary Grouped within class Grouped within class Grouped within Y4) class Mixed SES 240 2 Y4 Ash Set across Y4 – Set across Y4 – Not set (47) (56) Junior Grouped within set Grouped within set Mixed ability seating 208 2 Y4 Fir Junior Not set Not set Not set (40) (45) Grouped within class Grouped within class Mixed ability seating 169 3 Y3/4 Hollybush Not set Not set Not set (28) (43 Y4) Junior Grouped within class Grouped within class Mixed ability seating 214 2 Y4 Ivy Junior Not set Set across y4 - Not set (53) (60) Grouped within class Grouped within set Mixed ability Except set across Y3 seating and 4 once per week

343 1Y3/4 1Y4 Laburnu Set across Y4 - Set across Y4 - Not Set (39) Stream (43 m grouped within set Grouped within set Some in-class Y4) Primary 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) (reading, to KS1 Profess Working- Other Not writing, iona Class known2 maths, (‘High’ (‘low (‘average 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 Laura High (3.5) Mid-high 4 15 16 4 at Fir Brandon Mid (2.7) Mid-mid (mixed Kyle Mid (2.5) Mid-mid SES) Ellie High (3.5) Mid-high

Pupils Callum High (3.5) Mid-high 7 20 25 8 at Ivy Emma Mid (2.7) Mid-mid (mixed Emily Mid (3.3) Mid-mid SES) Abigail Low (2.4) Mid-low

Notes: 1: Pupils whose mean score fell between the 25th and 75th 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 Total # High Average Low Unknown pupils (focus children SES SES SES SES pupils highlighted) Willow 1 Megan 22 1 3 14 4 2 Lucy, Katie, 27 1 6 8 10 Harry Fir 1 Laura, 25 1 8 7 9 Brandon 2 Kyle, Ellie 20 3 8 8 1 Ivy 1 Emma, 30 4 15 10 1 Abigail 2 Callum, Emily 30 3 10 10 7

16 Table 5: SES composition of Y4 numeracy sets

School Set Matched Total # High Average Low Unknown pupils children SES SES SES SES (focus pupils highlighted) Willow 1 Megan, Lucy, 26 2 5 11 8 (see note) Katie 2 9 4 5 3 Harry 6 2 4 4 1 1 1

Fir 1 Laura, 25 1 8 7 9 Same as Brandon registration 2 Kyle, Ellie 20 3 8 8 1 groups

Ivy 1 Emma, 30 4 15 7 4 Abigail 2 Callum, Emily 30 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 Grou # High Average Low Unknown MP p - Pupils SES SES SES (high- low) 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 Grou # High Average Low Unknown MP p - pupils SES SES SES (high- low) 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 Grou # High Average Low Unknown MP p - pupils SES SES SES (high- low) 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 - pupils SES SES SES (high- low) 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, 12- 14 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