Minding the gap: school grouping practices and research evidence North of England Education Conference 2013, Sheffield Mark Boylan, Sheffield Hallam University.

Students with purple ties are gifted and talented. All the children at Crown Woods college in Greenwich, south London, know that. They are taught in separate colour- coordinated buildings, play in fenced-off areas and eat lunch at separate times. (From Guardian Newspaper report - Davis, R. 2011)

The evidence is consistent that thought there may be some benefits for higher attaining pupils in some circumstances (e.g. gifted and talented programmes), these are largely outweighed by the negative effects of attitudes for middle and lower performing learners…Some reviews suggests that the overall impact on learners is negative (i.e. over time their performance deteriorates. (From Sutton Trust: toolkit of strategies to improve learning - summary for pupils spending the Pupil Premium - Higgins, Kokotasaki, & Coe, 2011)

There is evidence from research that ability grouping does not help pupils to learn effectively. However, my experience is that since we have put Year 6 and Year 5 into sets one and two things have improved. The set two are happier now that we can deliver lessons that are more appropriate for them. It is easier for us to plan as teachers. We are now extending setting into Year 4 and Year 3. (Primary Mathematics co-ordinator (s)- composite quote)

School grouping practices Attainment effects Effects on learners and relationships Effects on pedagogy and curriculum

Effects on learners and relationships You’re putting this psychological prison around them …It kind of just breaks all their ambition … It’s quite sad that there’s kids there that could potentially be very, very smart and benefit us in so many ways, but it’s just kind of broken down from a young age. So that’s why I dislike the set system so much - because I think it almost formally labels kids as stupid. (Boaler, 2005:142) You're weighing up other people's weaknesses. It's cruel really. I would be thinking 'mmm he's a bit thick, I'll beat him or he's really clever so I won't, I won't be able to beat him'. And it's terrible to be making those sorts of value judgements about other people when you're nine. (Boylan & Povey, 2009b, p.50)

Which mindset do you have? Answer these questions about intelligence. Read each statement and decide whether you mostly agree with it or disagree with it. 1. Your intelligence is something very basic about you that you can't really change very much. 2. You can learn new things, but you can't really change how intelligent you are. 3. No matter how much intelligence you have you can always change it quite a bit 4. You can always substantially change how intelligent you are. Mindset, Dweck, 2006, p. 12

Two mindsets It's not that people holding this theory [of malleable intelligence] deny that there are differences among people in how much they know or in how quickly they master certain things at present. It's just that they focus on the idea that everyone, with effort and guidance, can increase their intellectual abilities… This view too has many repercussions for students. It makes then want to learn… [Students with this theory] thrive on challenge, throwing themselves wholeheartedly into difficult tasks - and sticking with them. (Dweck, 1999, p.3)

Recently the scientist S. Zanati, of the International Center of Brain Injury (ICBI) succeeded in determining the gene responsible for the development of Neurone-Z in human beings. As is well known, the Neurone-Z is in fact a group of neurones that are activated whenever a mathematical kind of operation is performed….[It has been found that] The absence of Neurone-Z make it almost impossible to form the concept of function…The most noticeable consequence is that traditional teaching methods can now be justified…What has now been proved has always been implicitly admitted, namely that the majority of students will not succeed, no matter how much effort they make because they do not have a neurone-Z….The school system has rightly developed itself into a hierarchical elitist system well suited to the upper classes (carriers) as well as an equal-opportunity democratic system suited to the lower classes (non-carriers) (Baldino, 2000, from pages ).