Research School Network: The mystery and complications of SEND This 2nd blog in a series on SEND explores the evidence to explain why we should think carefully about pupil groupings

The evidence on pupil grouping

As already discussed in the first blog in this series, SEND has been made over-complicated. I hesitate to point the finger at where or who has made it so because I think inevitably, I would have to be reflective and turn it upon myself. Of course there exist external sources who have handed us the batons of language which we’ve interpreted to add complexity, but I think we can be forgiven for this. Historically.

Now it’s time to read the evidence and make adjustments to our practice and this has to start with considering what we do for all pupils.

If you’re working in a specialist education provision, then yes, you have a point. If you’re working in mainstream, then actually the evidence tells us that by doing things too differently, we are exacerbating the divide and those differences even further.

Let’s start with one of the most contentious of all – pupil grouping.

At this point, it might be prudent to consider why we group pupils in the first place. I would suggest that the rationale could be quite varied, and may:

• enable teaching to be directed at specific deficits which the pupils have;
• be resource-driven – place all the learners who need extra support in the same group, then you can populate that group with the additional adult they require (or their EHCP says they have to have access to – more on TAs in a later blog);
• support the delivery of particular content which is only applicable to certain groups of pupils;
• allow the more able learners not to be ​‘held back’ by their less able peers;

amongst other reasons – this list is certainly not exhaustive.

I present these notions with no judgement about any of them, because we have to make practical decisions with the cohort of pupils, and staffing, we have in front of us.

However, none of these reasons is based on what is arguably the most important motive: pupil attainment. It is through this lens that the EEF have reached the conclusion, by examining over 50 years of research, that ​‘setting or streaming is not the most effective way to raise attainment for most pupils.’ The main opposite finding to this is that there is a small positive impact for high attaining learners, despite being negative for low and mid-range learners

These decisions to group pupils with similar needs together can also lead to time away from their mainstream classes and their peers. The 2017 SENSE review found that secondary Year 9 SEND pupils were grouped with similarly attaining pupils for the majority of their lessons and their Year 5 counterparts spent as much as a day away from their peers.

Therefore, it comes as no surprise that grouping brings with it a cost to the self-esteem of learners – the stigma of being placed in a ​‘bottom set’ or being ​‘taken out of class’ has not gone unnoticed by the pupils, and ensures that their self-identity as learners is linked to failure, compounding their difference from others.

So with our focus on SEND pupils, then this should lead us to intelligently interrogate our rationale if we continue to choose to adopt setting or streaming practices –the EEF toolkit poses some questions for us to consider in regards to pupil grouping:

1. Have you considered alternative approaches to tailoring teaching and learning? One to one and small group tuition are targeted interventions which have positive impacts on attainment.
2. How will you ensure that your setting or streaming approach enables more effective teaching for all pupils, including lower attaining pupils? Which groups will your most experienced teachers be allocated to?
3. How will you ensure that all pupils follow a challenging curriculum, including lower attaining pupils?
4. How will you minimise the risk of allocating pupils to the wrong group? Have you assessed whether your grouping criteria could disadvantage certain pupils? For younger children, have you taken their relative age within the year group into account?
5. How flexible are your grouping arrangements? Pupils progress at different rates and so regular monitoring and assessment is important to minimise misallocation and ensure challenge for all pupils.
6. How will you monitor the impact of setting or streaming on pupil engagement and attitudes to learning, particularly for lower attaining pupils?

As ever, decisions that we make within our schools are context driven and so it is up to each school to consider carefully their position and rationale. The first recommendation in the EEF guidance report on SEND in mainstream schools asks that we are ​‘inclusive by design,’ creating a positive and supportive environment for all pupils. If a child feels denigrated to the bottom set year after year, then this feels like the exact opposite.

However, schools have created attainment groupings as part of strategies to attempt to solve a problem, whether it be staffing, differentiation or access to content. So if you do decide to be ​‘bold’, as recommended in the SENSE report, and look again at mixed groupings, or just make efforts to mitigate against ​‘hard setting’, then the teachers need tools in their armoury to take on what can seem quite a daunting challenge.

Ro King