Session Objectives To critically unpick some of the classic - - PDF document

13/06/2014 1

Oxfordshire Maths Conference 12th June 2014

Dr Rachel Marks r.g.marks@brighton.ac.uk

Session Objectives

• To critically unpick some of the classic

implications of ability-grouping

• To develop awareness of some unintended

impacts of grouping, both pedagogic and affective

• To consider ways forward within the context
• f current practice

The Research Study

Years 4 and 6 24 focal pupils in 13 classes 284 pupils 8 focal teachers

Ability-Grouping: The current picture in England

• Early 1960s 96% of schools streamed from the age of seven by a notion of

general intelligence – tripartite education system

• Plowden Report (1967) and concerns over inequalities saw a move

towards mixed-ability teaching

• The National Curriculum fuelled a resurgence of ability-grouping in

primary schools (Sukhnandan & Lee, 1998)

• 52% of primary schools made some grouping changes at the inception of

the National Numeracy Strategy (Hallam et al., 2004)

• Currently, 56% of pupils in Reception classes (ages 4-5) experience within-

class (table) ability-grouping. Recent longitudinal research suggests that the use of all forms of ability-grouping is increasing in England’s primary

• schools. (Hallam & Parsons, 2013)
• National Curriculum 2014?

Ability: The challenge of change

Ability is a language which is incredibly common in schools, but what does it mean and how do we use it? What does ability mean? When you ability-group, what factors do you use to allocate pupils?

Factors schools used to allocate pupils to streams at 7+ (Barker-Lunn, 1970) Infant school record Intelligence tests Judgement Internal examinations Age of pupil Attainment tests Others 68% 42% 33% 25% 23% 16% 7% Number of schools 258

Ability: The challenge of change

“Findings suggest that over and above the effect of attainment, pupils with no SEN and pupils from higher socio-economic status backgrounds are more likely to be assigned to higher sets and less likely to be assigned to lower sets.” (Muijs & Dunne, 2010) “Children born in September are more than twice as likely to be in the highest stream as those born in August.” (Campbell, 2013) “More than 90% of teachers and parents believe genetic influences to be more than or at least as important as environmental factors in mathematical attainment.” (Kovas et al., 2007) “Whereas research shows the plasticity of the brain … some schools bombard students with the messages that ability is fixed and that some students have talent and intelligence while others do not.” (Boaler, 2013)

13/06/2014 2

Ability: The challenge of change

• The English education system is predicated by a fixed mindset
• Interpretations of policy requirements sustain a fixed mindset approach

“…we’re campaigning now for the adoption of the teaching methods which mark out the very best. Setting by ability so that the strongest can be stretched and the weakest given extra help.” (Gove, 2007) The White Paper … argues in favour of more setting … It envisages further expansion of the gifted and talented programme and an increase in grouping and setting of pupils by ability. (DfES, 2005) “It seems to me that 1000 kids in a comprehensive, sooner or later, the ones who are good at maths will have to be told ‘you are good at maths’ and the ones who aren’t, will have to be told ‘you are not good at maths’ … you should be learning as a young person that there are limits to what you can do.” (Richard D. North, The Big Questions, 2009)

Fixed mindsets are so pervasive they go unquestioned

Pupils’ Beliefs about Ability

Rachel: So what makes someone good at maths? Wynne (Y4): Their brain’s bigger. And they’re cleverer and better … it just

• happens. They were born like that. They were born clever.

Rachel: And what might make someone not good at maths? Zackary (Y4): Some people are just not born clever. Yolanda (Y4): Some people are really good at maths and some people aren’t that good at maths. Probably it sometimes runs in the family. Rachel: How much further could you make yourself better? Peter (Y6): Just about here, not a huge way, well because you can only do so much can’t you? 70% of pupils’ comments reflected a fixed-mindset with a belief that mathematical ability was limited and genetically determined

The Implications of Ability-Grouping

http://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/toolkit/

The Implications of Ability-Grouping: Limited Opportunities for All?

Procedural learning Low level work, small numbers Extends traditional views of maths & limits space for extension Putting aside ‘real life’ Use of manipulatives Limited access to efficient methods and advanced mathematics Fast paced competitive lessons Behavioural control Lack of peer-support, discussion and mathematical talk Fear of making mistakes in front of peers Teachers protect pupils from ‘hard maths’ Reduced access to interesting mathematics Top Sets Bottom Sets Implications

The Implications of Ability-Grouping: Limiting discussion

Peter: The person down here [worst at maths], the teacher would never ask them any questions because they know that they would be silly and everything when they answer them, and so the teacher won’t involve them in lessons. They could get better, but no one would know because the teacher wouldn’t pick them, it would be very difficult for them to show they were better. Megan: If you are quite clever in some way, sometimes you don’t want to get something wrong because other people might say something about that, so I would rather not say anything. (Set 4) (Set 1)

13/06/2014 3 The Pressures to, and Implications of, Ability-Grouping: Educational triage

Mr Iverson: Usually we put the strongest teacher in the Cusp Group. Mrs Jerrett: With the Cusp Group you have to, sort of, you know, push open those doors a bit and not be frightened and say right, what about these numbers … the idea is to push them up and get them moving. Samuel: The different groups get different things, I want Mr Quinton [Cusp Group], they have fun […] James: It’s soooo different. They don’t care about us being happy, we don’t have nothing, no resources in lessons, nothing. We don’t have nothing to use.

Set 3 (Cusp)

Strongest teacher with specialist training Dedicated Year 6 classroom and resources Different methods encouraged, some problem- solving Follows Primary Framework and prepares for SATs

Set 4

Supply teacher or Higher Level Teaching Assistant (HLTA) No dedicated learning space and limited resources Year 1 and 2 individual worksheets Limited mathematical access, no SATs preparation

Triage in Action: Educational Outcomes

• Set 1 & Set 2 students

make the expected gain

• Over the academic

year, Set 3 attained a mean maths gain of

• ver one year and four

months

• Set 4 attained a mean

gain of seven months

The Implications of Ability-Grouping: Other impacts The Implications of Ability-Grouping: Other impacts

“Maths before lunch I’m not very good with because I am having bad lunchtimes and I have to go and tell Mr Iverson when I am feeling fine and when I am not. I normally like maths before break or after lunch, but not before lunch.” (Wynne, Year 4, Avenue Primary) “In our group we could have done more get up and do but in that computer room there isn’t a lot of space and you know in the corridor you’re a bit constrained and a bit public as well because everyone is walking through.” (Mrs Jerrett, Year 4, Avenue Primary)

Why does ability-grouping matter?

• 88% of all those children placed in streams or

sets, as they now are on government recommendation from four and a half, will remain in those same groupings until they leave

• school. (Dixon, 2002)

Inflexibility

• Misplacement in within-as well as across-class

groups may be a significant phenomenon.

• There is even an overlap in scores of the children

in high and low-ability mathematics groups. (Macintyre & Ireson, 2002)

Misplacement

• Ability-grouping impacts persist beyond formal
• education. There appear to be social justice
• utcomes with students taught under equitable

structures more likely to enter higher status

• careers. (Boaler, 2005)

Long-Term

What does change mean?

“Do people with this mindset believe that anyone can be anything … No, but they believe that a person’s true potential is unknown (and unknowable); that it’s impossible to foresee what can be accomplished with years of passion, toil, and training.” (Dweck, 2006, p.7)

13/06/2014 4 Is changing the language the answer?

• Table-groups and names:

“Well, so there are like best and worst tables, like that’s the first one, then that one then that one, then that one. Mine’s the best one. Mr Donaldson does it so all of the people that are the same ability are together.” (George, Year 4, Parkview)

• Schools and teachers lack awareness of practices and

beliefs as ability is so embedded in everything they do

– Changing approaches to children based on ability beliefs – Top-level policy concerns

• Limited space for criticality : choice & challenge

What can we do in the Classroom?

Awareness: assumptions and practices (e.g. praise) What is your mindset? Criticality: policy and practice Emphasis: effort or ability? Think about language Genuine high expectations for all Access for all: Such as in LTHC tasks

References

Barker Lunn, J. C. (1970). Streaming in the primary school: A longitudinal study of children in streamed and non-streamed junior schools. Slough: National Foundation for Educational Research. Boaler, J. (2013). Ability and Mathematics: the mindset revolution that is reshaping education. FORUM, 15(1), 145-154. Boaler, J. (2005). The 'psychological prisons' from which they never escaped: The role of ability grouping in reproducing social class inequalities. Forum, 47(2&3), 135-143. Campbell, T. (2013). In-school ability grouping and the month of birth effect: preliminary evidence from the Millennium Cohort Study. In CLS Cohort Studies Working Paper 2013/1. London: Centre for Longitudinal Studies, Institute of Education, University of London.

• DfES. (2005). Higher standards, better schools for all: More choice for parents and pupils. Education

White Paper, October 2005, London: Department for Education and Skills. Dixon, A. (2002). Editorial. Forum, 44(1), 1. Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: How you can fulfil your potential. London: Constable & Robinson Ltd Gove, M. (2007). Speech at Conservative Party Conference, accessed from www.michaelgove.com, 25/09/2010. Hallam, S., and S. Parsons (2013). Prevalence of streaming in UK primary schools: evidence from the Millennium Cohort Study. British Educational Research Journal 39(3) 514-544. Kovas, Y., Haworth, C., Dale, P. S., & Plomin, R. (2007). Environmental Origins of Learning Abilities and Disabilities in the Early School Years. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 72, vii-160. Macintyre, H., & Ireson, J. (2002). Within-class ability grouping: Placement of pupils in groups and self-

• concept. British Educational Research Journal, 28(2), 249-263. Macqueen, S. E. (2012). Grouping for
• inequity. International Journal of Inclusive Education 17(3), 295-309

Marks, R. (2014). The Dinosaur in the Classroom: what we stand to lose through ability-grouping in the primary school. FORUM, 56(1), pp.45-54 Marks, R. (2014). Educational triage and ability-grouping in primary mathematics: a case-study of the impacts on low attaining pupils. Research in Mathematics Education, 16(1,) pp.38-53 Marks, R. (2013). ‘The Blue Table Means You Don’t Have a Clue’: the persistence of fixed-ability thinking and practices in primary mathematics in English schools. FORUM, 15(1), 29-42. Muijs, D, and Dunne, M. (2010) Setting by ability - or is it? A quantitative study of determinants of set placement in English secondary schools. Educational Research, 52(4) 391-407.