Let the professionals decide

9th May 1997 at 01:00
It is too early to decide whether this week's research paper on streaming and setting (page three) is answering an out-of-date question. The survey of evidence, from North America as well as the United Kingdom, was commissioned by the former government to accompany its paper on Achievement for All, which made a case for setting of pupils, if not for streaming. No doubt the briefing papers being read this week by Scottish Office ministers invite them to decide on their attitude to an issue dear to the heart of their predecessors. They will get little practical help from the research review.

Its authors, Wynne Harlen and Heather Malcolm, conclude that some studies lend support to ability grouping, while others point in the opposite direction. But on one matter they appear agreed: there is little to suggest that the ablest pupils are disadvantaged by mixed-ability classes in their early secondary years.

Underachievement was a concern of the last government. The conclusion of the research review is that class organisation is not the only factor. How a teacher handles pupils of varying abilities must be significant, but there is not enough chalkface evidence to allow that to be taken into calculation. The review is still useful. It brings together manifold studies and suggests that they should be evaluated using a concept of "best evidence synthesis". In other words, not all are of equal merit. The review also clears up a misconception that dogged the political debate earlier this year. Primary schools discriminate among pupils by ability. So why is the practice abandoned in many secondaries for S1 and S2? Harlen and Malcolm point out the difference between secondary setting, which involves forming whole classes by ability or achievement, and the creation of ability groups within a primary class. They also note that whereas mixed-ability work may be difficult in mathematics and modern languages, it is less so in the social subjects, which do not depend so heavily on accumulated concepts and knowledge.

For new ministers the conclusion should be clear. Classroom organisation is not a matter for Government fiat, or even for uniform policy across an education authority. In some schools the social disadvantage of setting - that pupils whose self-esteem needs boosting are discouraged if placed in a "low" set - is the most important criterion. In other schools a majority of teachers may favour selection by ability, at least for some subjects by S2. Heads and their staffs should be allowed to make a professional judgment. The available evidence offers no better alternative.

Log-in as an existing print or digital subscriber

Forgotten your subscriber ID?


To access this content and the full TES archive, subscribe now.

View subscriber offers


Get TES online and delivered to your door – for less than the price of a coffee

Save 33% off the cover price with this great subscription offer. Every copy delivered to your door by first-class post, plus full access to TES online and the TES app for just £1.90 per week.
Subscribers also enjoy a range of fantastic offers and benefits worth over £270:

  • Discounts off TES Institute courses
  • Access over 200,000 articles in the TES online archive
  • Free Tastecard membership worth £79.99
  • Discounts with Zipcar, Buyagift.com, Virgin Wines and other partners
Order your low-cost subscription today