- Title: The Student Grouping Study
- Authors: The Education Endowment Foundation
- Access the original paper here
- Watch a video overview:
Paper summary
The Student Grouping Study is an evaluation report published by the Education Endowment Foundation in collaboration with University College London. This research analyses how organising Year 7 and Year 8 students into either attainment-based sets or mixed-ability groups influences their mathematical progress and self-confidence. The findings indicate that students in mixed-attainment settings generally made one month less progress than those in setted classes, though outcomes were similar for disadvantaged and low-achieving pupils. Beyond academic performance, the report examines implementation costs, teaching quality, and the specific classroom experiences of different learner demographics. By comparing these two common instructional methods, the study aims to provide evidence-based guidance for educators seeking to improve equity and achievement in secondary schools. This document serves as a comprehensive resource for understanding the practical impacts of student grouping strategies in the English education system.
If teachers remember one thing from this study, it should be…
Students in mixed attainment mathematics groups made one month’s less progress than those in attainment sets. Additionally, mixed grouping negatively impacted low-attainers’ self-confidence and generally failed to adequately challenge high-attaining students, an area where setting proved noticeably more effective.
***Paper Deep Dive***
What are the key technical terms used in the paper?
- Setting: Grouping students by their attainment in a specific subject.
- Mixed attainment: Classes reflecting the full range of a cohort’s prior attainment.
- Streaming: Grouping students across all subjects based on general ability.
- Opportunity to Learn (OTL): Instructional time and content coverage.
What are the characteristics of the participants in the study?
The participants were Year 7 and Year 8 students in English state-funded secondary schools. They were taught mathematics in either mixed attainment classes or attainment sets. The final analysed sample comprised 14,877 students across 89 schools (27 using mixed attainment, 62 using setting).
What does this paper add to the current field of research?
This study provides the first large-scale, robust evidence on the impact of attainment grouping within the English educational system. Crucially, it adds detailed insights into how these grouping practices specifically affect disadvantaged students, addressing a major gap in the previously limited evidence base.
What are the key implications for teachers in the classroom?
Teachers in mixed-attainment classrooms must actively find ways to challenge high-prior attaining students. The study found that high-attaining students in mixed groups make an average of two months less progress compared to their peers in setted classrooms. While teachers in mixed-attainment classes often provided extension activities, these tasks were frequently too easy, unrelated to the lesson, or rarely discussed in class, meaning that primarily only setted schools successfully challenged their highest attainers.
Mixed-attainment groupings can negatively impact student self-confidence, particularly for low-prior attainers. Although many teachers advocate for mixed attainment to avoid the negative labelling of low-attaining students, the study revealed a moderate, statistically significant negative effect on the general and mathematics self-confidence of low-attaining students in mixed groups compared to those in sets.
Setting does not academically disadvantage students from lower socio-economic backgrounds or those with low prior attainment. Contrary to some prior qualitative evidence, students eligible for Free School Meals (FSM) and low-prior attaining students made similar academic progress regardless of whether they were taught in mixed-attainment groups or attainment sets.
There is a notable gap between teachers’ perceived pedagogical practices and actual classroom delivery. While teachers in mixed-attainment schools self-reported a higher use of problem-solving tasks, open-ended questions, and group work, classroom observations revealed that teacher-led, whole-class instruction heavily dominated across both grouping types. Very few opportunities for collaborative pair or group work were actually observed, indicating that teachers may need to more consciously embed diverse, interactive learning methods into their daily practice.
Why might teachers exercise caution before applying these findings in their classroom?
Teachers should exercise caution because the headline findings carry a low to moderate security rating. The quasi-experimental study experienced high student attrition (~30%) and unmeasured differences between schools may exist. Furthermore, it only evaluated established practices, so the impacts of transitioning to new methods remain unknown.
What is a single quote that summarises the key findings from the paper?
“Students in schools using mixed attainment grouping made one month’s less progress in mathematics, on average, compared to students in schools using setting by attainment. This is our best estimate of impact, which has a low/moderate security rating.”
