Streaming, Setting and Selection

Streaming: When pupils are put in a selected class for all subjects based on a judgement of their general academic ability and potential.

Setting: When children are placed in classes for individual subjects depending on their ability in that subject.

Selective School: When a school selects its students by an assessment of their academic ability and / or potential on intake.

'One in six junior school children in England are streamed by the age of seven.'
Research published by the Institute of Education, July 2011

'So why can't we have streaming and setting, to help all children
reach their potential?'
David Cameron, Address to the Conservative Party Conference, October 4, 2005

'There is no consistent and reliable evidence of positive effects of setting and streaming in any subjects, or for pupils of particular ability levels.'
Scottish Council for Research in Education

'Ability grouping had "rather little impact on overall attainment" and that "the greater the extent of structured ability groupings, the greater was the degree of apparent stigmatization of those in lower-ability groups.' Finding of the Institute of Education.

There are few more contentious issues in education than those that surround the merits or otherwise, of streaming and setting. Politicians, whose prejudices are inevitably grounded in their own school experiences, are always eager to contribute to the debate, especially if they feel their rhetoric is likely to appeal to those voters who constantly talk about slipping standards and values. The result is that we have one of the most selective education systems in the world and one that, according to the findings of PISA Programme for International Student Assessment, continues to fail us.

There is no doubt that mixed ability teaching has its downside, but arguably those failings have less to do with mixed ability classes than with the breakdown in classroom discipline, through the disempowering and compromising of teachers to a degree that would be risible in any other country. Yet while streaming makes apparent sense, the practice neglects four important factors: the difficulty of assessing a child's ability, especially at a young age; the nature of intellectual development, which is often irregular and depends, in part, on social maturation; the effect of motivation which can significantly improve classroom performance; and the fact that streaming can depress expectations.

Certainly, to stream children as young as seven is, in my view, nonsense. Teachers are trained to differentiate in their teaching practice to cater for the range of abilities by using groups or individual strategies group and to draw strength from the range of talents within each class. To put barriers (and streaming is an aspirational barrier) in front of children so young is wrong. Children mature at different stages and respond to the expectations of their teachers. They are very aware of labels and sadly work to them in the same way that teachers teach to them. If we want any evidence of the way that other countries view streaming, we need look no further than Finland where all forms of streaming have been abolished in their lower secondary schools. The result (although there is a little more involved than that) is that Finland has outperformed all other countries in the latest PISA assessments. Not surprisingly then that the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), recommended that countries should "limit early tracking and streaming and postpone academic selection".

So can streaming ever be an acceptable practice? When children are faced with different curricula, depending on the nature of the examinations they are being prepared for then streaming can make sense; but as a rule, especially in primary schools, it is usually employed to reach targets and to appease some parents, usually to the detriment of the majority of children.

By contrast, setting can be a useful way of meeting the individual needs of children, at a stage in their education where differentiation within one class becomes limited. It allows for the child to develop certain strengths (e.g. in the sciences or languages) without removing them from their social group. To work properly, setting should be fluid and open-ended and not restricted to one or two subjects only. Because our assessment of children is so narrow, based on one or two of the intelligences only, we should always be looking for ways to promote children's strengths in other areas, in the same way that we 'set' children in sport teams according to their ability and potential. As always in education, as in life, what is more important is for children to possess a good work ethic and intellectual curiosity, traits that are rarely assessed, yet are crucial determinants of future success.

Which brings us to selective schools. My last teaching post in New Zealand, before coming to England thirteen years ago, was at a leading senior school. Like almost every school in New Zealand it was non-selective and during my last two years there I taught 6th form History to a very mixed ability class. The class comprised of some very able students, as well as some boys and girls who were there primarily to play for the 1st XV, or just to play, before going back to the farm or onto some form of further education. In both my final two years, a student from the class won a place at Cambridge University, both graduating with 1st class honors, one going on to win a post-graduate scholarship to Harvard. I cannot help but think how much better they were equipped for life than those children who, through a process of selection, often starting as young as 4 years old, have been segregated from their peers, based on an ability to pass exams. Naturally, parents want the very best for their children and should be properly ambitious for them, but it is the moral responsibility of schools to keep the door as open as possible and continue to have high expectations for all children.