27th July 2016 1:00
By Blue Tutors
Streaming, or setting, is a practice in schools where students are split into classes based on their perceived academic ability. Although often used interchangeable, streaming involves selecting students based on broad level, who will then remain together for all classes, whereas setting defines ability groups which are subject specific. Banding of classes was in fact the norm in British secondary schools until the early 70s, when the comprehensive system of mixed-ability teaching, where all students of the same age are taught together, put the streamed structure into question. Currently, almost all secondary schools still use some form of banding, mainly in mathematics and foreign languages, however some primary schools start banding as young as 6 years old. The rationale behind the reintroduction of setting is that it is difficult to teach all children effectively in an all-ability class; gifted students are left frustrated and lower attainment children are ‘left behind’ as teachers tend to, understandably, “aim for the middle”. Many, therefore, assume that teaching can be more efficient and effective in groups with a narrower range of abilities.
The political debate on the subject rages on, fuelled by an increasing number of studies over the last 30 years into the effect on student learning outcomes. The most recent research from a study of UK primary schools in 2014 suggests that while setting helps stretch the brightest students, improving their learning and test scores, it does very little to help others catch up. In fact, streaming in primary schools was actually shown to produce worse outcomes for the lower groups; students lost the equivalent of up to two months of progress compared to their peers in mixed ability groups. There we some clear exceptions to this, however the most pronounced difference was seen in mathematics, one of the most widely streamed subjects.
The positive effect on talented students who are exposed to more difficult material at an earlier stage is easy to explain, yet the disadvantage to less able students having classes pitched specifically to their level and needs is harder to understand. One of the main causes of this divergence in progress is thought to be linked to the effect of confidence on outcomes. Research has established that lack of confidence has as measurable detrimental effect on performance. It would follow that reinforcing insecurities of struggling students through banding could aggravate this. Others argue that banding from an early age reinforces a dangerous and inaccurate belief that ability is somehow innate and fixed, as opposed to improved through effort, which further discourages lower sets.
There is also evidence that streaming perpetuates the pervasive inequalities which exist in the current education system. The effect is most pronounced at younger ages, where socio-economic background, age and even gender are a major determining factor in a child’s learning outcomes relative to their peers. The “summer effect” has been well document, showing that those born later in the academic year consistently perform worse than their peers, who have up to a year’s more development by the time they start formal schooling. This effect is most obvious in professional sport, but is also embedded in academic performance gaps as at a young age, one year equates to a very large difference in physical and mental ability. While the age gap becomes less important over time, the gap in performance persists into higher education. Because of its polarizing effect, streaming classes accentuates any such existing disadvantages.
This paints a bleak picture, however its supporters point out that most of the research on the subject has been conducted in the US, whose education system is significantly different to that of the UK. Also, although most studies do concur that streaming only has a positive effect on stronger students, group size and the quality of teaching have a substantial effect on the outcome. When the lower band classes are kept small and assigned a highly skilled teacher, who can tailor lesson content and give children much more attention than in larger classes, the trend is reversed and individuals outperform equivalent students in mixed classes. This is presumably due to the well-established value of small group or one-on-one teaching, where personalized teaching yields better understanding and progress.
Perhaps the question we need to ask is what is the function of education and what does equal opportunity mean? Whether streaming is successful depends on what you are trying to accomplish: level the playing field, narrow the gap between highest and lowest achievement, or provide the most appropriate education for each student, or see all children reach their full potential? If the aim is to improve the attainment of all students, then enforcing streaming or setting is not a sensible approach; however, targeted interventions, like small group teaching, ‘catch up’ or extension programmes using an ability based selection element, can be extremely effective when implemented correctly.