Setting is difficult to talk about. The available evidence for what works is quite limited and the emotive discussions that arise around this topic can generate more heat than light.
So, what do we know about setting?
The evidence synthesised in the Education Endowment Foundation toolkit on setting or streaming suggests that setting has a slight negative impact, overall. That’s the headline, but to break it down a little more, research suggests that being in a higher set may confer a positive benefit, while being in a lower set may confer a negative effect.
Read more
Setting is always an imperfect process. Despite our best efforts, we never perfectly assign pupils to their “correct” groups. Using key stage 2 Sats results, we favour older children: around 67 per cent of September-born children meet the expected standard compared with around 52 per cent born in August.
But this year is different. This year, we do not have Sats to guide us, and we also have to contend with pupils’ radically different remote learning experiences, where disadvantaged pupils got the worst deal. Assuming we assess children in September to inform setting, then these pupils will likely underperform their potential.
Setting: How do we make setting fair?
To avoid embedding inequity, we need to avoid putting poorer pupils in lower sets where we know from the research that they will have a harder time. This is akin to not picking these pupils for the football team, which deprives them of the best opportunities to improve.
So how can we ensure that we are making decisions about ability groupings as fair as possible this term? There are no easy solutions to this issue, but I think it is best tackled in phases.
Phase 1: Awareness
The first phase is being alive to these challenges when determining sets and allocating resources. Make sure all staff are aware of the issues and discuss them explicitly.
One radical option is to simply not set, although this is seldom popular and not without challenges.
Phase 2: Great teaching
The toolkit tells us about averages. Focusing on great teaching for all and allocating the best teachers to the classes with the greatest needs offers hope of beating the average. Great teaching includes having high expectations about curriculum, homework and behaviour.
University College London’s ”Dos and Don’ts of attainment grouping” provides some excellent reminders about what to do and what to avoid for effective setting - of course, following the recommendations under the current constraints may be especially challenging.
Phase 3: Regrouping
Finally, it is critical that there are opportunities to move between sets over time. This is challenging with bubbling requirements, but it is likely to be a critical feature of effective setting, so schools will need to think about the safest ways to make movement possible.
The pandemic has thrown up many surprises, but setting this year poses predictable, avoidable problems - are we willing to match our rhetoric around disadvantage with decisive action?
Thomas Martell teaches biology in County Durham, where he also leads a research school
