Becky Francis

Despite extensive research on attainment grouping, the impact of attainment grouping on pupil attainment remains poorly understood and contested. This paper presents evidence from a study conducted with 2944 12–13 year olds, from 76 schools in England, who were allocated to between‐class attainment groups (‘setting’) in English and mathematics over the first 2 years of secondary schooling. After controlling for prior attainment, pupils in the top set performed significantly better than pupils in the middle and bottom sets in both English and mathematics. The findings indicate a widening gap in attainment, especially in the case of English. Findings, especially in the case of mathematics, provide more evidence of a relative benefit for pupils placed in top sets than a relative detriment for those in bottom sets.

The impact of self-fulfilling prophecy in education, and of attainment grouping on pupil self-perception, remain topics of longstanding debate, with important consequences for social in/justice. Focusing on self-confidence, this article draws on survey responses from 9,059 12-13 year olds who were tracked by subject (‘setting’). They provided survey responses when placed in ‘ability’ sets at the start of their secondary schooling, and again late the following year; enabling analysis of impact over time. After controlling for prior attainment, the gap in general self-confidence between students in the top and bottom sets for mathematics is shown to widen over time, and high set students’ self-confidence in English had also grown significantly; although there was not further widening in the cases of self-confidence in mathematics or in general self-confidence between students in the top and bottom sets for English. Implications of these findings for interventions directed at addressing educational disadvantage are discussed.

Drawing upon data gathered from 9301 Year 7 students (12–13 years old) from 46 secondary schools in England, this study represents the first larger‐scale attempt to compare their actual set allocations in maths with the counterfactual position where their allocation to sets is based solely on their prior attainment at the end of primary school [using their Key Stage 2 (KS2) fine‐grained scores in maths]. Through such an analysis, the study found that nearly a third of students (31.2%) had been misallocated to lower or higher sets than their KS2 results would have warranted. Beyond this, school setting practices were found to exacerbate differences in set allocation in relation to gender and ethnicity, but not socioeconomic background. The odds of girls being misallocated to lower sets in maths than their prior attainment would warrant was found to be 1.5 times higher than that for boys. Similarly, the odds of Black students being misallocated to lower sets was 2.4 times higher than for White students, whilst the odds of Asian students being misallocated to lower maths sets was 1.7 times higher than for White students. The article concludes by reflecting on the significant role that setting by attainment in secondary school can play in exacerbating already established patterns of educational inequalities in gender and ethnicity.

This chapter outlines the main arguments in the area of gender and undergraduate writing styles. It explores B. Francis’s hypothesis that a bold and assertive style, more readily available to males, can be particularly rewarded and penalised in undergraduate writing, and it uses data from a study of undergraduate students’ writing to test this theory. Men continue to be awarded more first class degrees than do women, although recent Higher Education Statistics Agency figures suggest a slight closing of this gender gap. There are a number of different possible explanations for the continuing existence of the gender discrepancy in undergraduate achievement, despite the practice of blind marking. An alternative explanation is that students write differently according to gender — and that gendered criteria are applied to students’ writing. The research of B. Davies and B. Francis shows how children come to understand the world as gendered according to a relational binary code, or ‘gender duality’, as Davies terms it.

‘Ability’ or attainment grouping can introduce an additional label that influences teachers’ expectations of students in specific attainment groups. This paper is based on a survey of 597 teachers across 82 schools and 34 teacher interviews in 10 schools undertaken as part of a large-scale mixed-methods study in England. The paper focuses on English and mathematics teachers’ expectations of secondary school students in lower attainment groups, and explores how low-attaining students are constructed as learners who benefit from specific approaches to learning justified through discourses of nurturing and protection. The authors argue that the adoption of different pedagogical approaches for groups of low-attaining learners to nurture them may in some cases be fostering dependency on teachers and cap opportunities for more independent learning. Furthermore, more inclusive whole-school learning-culture approaches may better allow for students across the attainment range to become independent learners.

There is a substantial international literature around the impact of different types of grouping by attainment on the academic and personal outcomes of students. This literature, however, is sparse in student voices, especially in relation to mixed-attainment practices. Research has indicated that students of different attainment levels might have different experiences and views of grouping structures. This paper represents a significant contribution to this literature. Drawing on the data collected as part of a large study on student grouping and teaching in England, we analyse the attitudes of students of different attainment levels to mixed-attainment practice, focusing on their explanations for their preferences or aversion to mixed-attainment classes. The data-set is drawn from group discussions and individual interviews with 89 students age 11/12 (Year 7) from eight secondary schools practicing mixed-attainment grouping in mathematics and English. Our analysis identifies some broad patterns in student attitudes, including a strong preference for mixed attainment among those at lower prior attainment. The analysis of the explanations students give for their opinions on mixed-attainment practice demonstrates how the learner identities of different groups of students are constituted in various ways by the discourses around ‘ability’, and constrained by the dominant ideology of ‘ability’ hierarchy.

‘Setting’ is a widespread practice in the UK, despite little evidence of its efficacy and substantial evidence of its detrimental impact on those allocated to the lowest sets. Taking a Bourdieusian approach, we propose that setting can be understood as a practice through which the social and cultural reproduction of dominant power relations is enacted within schools. Drawing on survey data from 12,178 Year 7 (age 11/12) students and discussion groups and individual interviews with 33 students, conducted as part of a wider project on secondary school grouping practices, we examine the views of students who experience setting, exploring the extent to which the legitimacy of the practice is accepted or challenged, focusing on students’ negative views about setting. Analyses show that privileged students (White, middle class) were most likely to be in top sets whereas working‐class and Black students were more likely to be in bottom sets. Students in the lowest sets (and boys, Black students and those in receipt of free school meals) were the most likely to express negative views of setting and to question the legitimacy and ‘fairness’ of setting as a practice, whereas top‐set students defended the legitimacy of setting and set allocations as ‘natural’ and ‘deserved’. This paper argues that setting is incompatible with social justice approaches to education and calls for the foregrounding of the views of those who are disadvantaged by the practice as a tool for challenging the doxa of setting.