Research School Network: To set or not to set? That is the question… By Victoria Begley, Deputy Director, London South Research School

The results of the recently published Student Grouping Study, carried out on year 7 and 8 pupils in 120 schools, suggest ​‘to set’ – but only just. By matching two groups of schools – those that normally set and those that teach in mixed-ability groups – the study examined the impact of setting on progress in KS3 maths. Their findings suggest that KS3 pupils in mixed-ability classes make, on average, one month less progress than pupils placed in maths sets. Interesting, yes, but is it compelling enough to change in-school practice?


Previous discourse on attainment grouping has highlighted the risk of negative effects for lower prior attaining pupil groups (LPAG) and disadvantaged pupils. In particular, concerns around misallocation of disadvantaged pupils to lower sets, lack of consistent challenge within these lessons and deployment of less experienced teachers to, arguably, the pupils in need of the best teaching, are cited in the EEF’s Teaching and Learning Toolkit on setting and streaming. Last updated in 2021, the 58 studies considered here showed – overall – zero months of additional progress as a result of setting. While higher prior attaining groups (HPAG) made an additional one month of progress, LPAG pupils made three months less progress, on average, than their peers in mixed attainment groups.


So, do the findings of the Student Grouping Study do enough to dispel these concerns? Maybe. As an EEF study, of course disadvantaged pupils were front and centre of the analysis. The results indicate that disadvantaged pupils and LPAG pupils made similar progress in mixed or streamed maths classes. However, mixed-attainment groups had a small negative effect on maths confidence overall and for disadvantaged pupils, and a more noticeable negative impact on the confidence of LPAG pupils.


In reality, however, it was the HPAG pupils who were impacted most by setting. In mixed attainment classes, they made two months less progress than in attainment-based maths sets. According to the EEF summary of the research, mixed-attainment maths groups tended to resemble lower-set groupings in terms of pace and, where extension material was provided, it was often unrelated to the learning and rarely adequately covered or discussed in class. For me at least, this raises one outstanding question: is it the setting, or the pedagogy that makes the difference?


As a primary teacher, I am poorly qualified to comment on secondary maths teaching practices. I am, however, well versed when it comes to manipulatives, maths mastery and the SEND 5‑a-day! Reading this, I am drawn to reflect on Every Child Achieving and Thriving and whether maths setting at KS3 (or even earlier!) truly sets every child up to succeed. To what extent do maths sets effectively provide challenge for all children? And do they promote success for all children, regardless of their background? It may be that setting as standard in KS3 is the way forward. However, in-class, flexible attainment grouping has been shown to promote additional progress in primary settings – particularly for maths. Although likely more difficult to achieve in a secondary setting, would the flexibility of this approach provide the same advantage to HPAG pupils while addressing the niggling concerns around misallocation, level of challenge and teacher deployment? I have more questions than answers, clearly, but I am very interested to see where these new findings take us.