A national survey of ability grouping practices in secondary school physical education in England

Figures & data

Table 1. Key terms and definitions.

Streaming	Streaming is a practice of assigning students to classes based on an overall assessment of their general ability, with students remaining in these classes for all or most subjects (Sukhnandan and Lee 1998; Wilkinson and Penney 2022b).
Banding	Banding is a less restrictive and differentiated form of streaming, in which students are allocated to broader ability bands, rather than to single classes (Ireson and Hallam 2001). Typically, schools have two or three bands, and each includes more than one class group, which may then be regrouped into sets for different subjects (Ireson, Clark, and Hallam 2002).
Setting	Setting is more flexible and nuanced than streaming and banding because students are divided into classes based on their prior attainment in individual subjects only (Francis, Taylor, and Tereshchenko 2020; Wilkinson and Penney 2022b). Hence, setting recognises that students may be low attaining in one subject area, but high attaining in another (Francis, Taylor, and Tereshchenko 2020; Hallam and Ireson 2006).
Mixed-ability grouping	Mixed-ability grouping differs from steaming, banding and setting because classes are formed (either randomly or purposefully) to ensure that each includes students with a broad range of prior attainment (Francis, Taylor, and Tereshchenko 2020; Wilkinson and Penney 2022b).
Within-class grouping	In conjunction with any of above ability grouping practices, teachers may also use within-class grouping to divide students within the same class into flexible, smaller groups for specific activities and/or purposes (Francis, Taylor, and Tereshchenko 2020).

Notes: Streaming, banding, setting and mixed-ability grouping are all forms of between-class grouping, where students are organised into different whole-class groups (Francis, Taylor, and Tereshchenko 2020). Schools may also use variations of these practices, including mixed-ability grouping with a separate top and/or bottom set (Taylor et al. 2022).

Table 2. Ability grouping options presented in the survey.

Grouping option	Description
Setting	Students are grouped by ability/attainment in PE (not by ability/attainment in other subjects).
Fully mixed-ability grouping	All PE teaching groups include students from the full ability/attainment range for the year group.
Mixed-ability grouping and top set	The highest ability/attaining students are taught in a separate group for PE. All other groups include students from the remaining full ability/attainment range.
Mixed-ability grouping and bottom set	The lowest ability/attaining students are taught in a separate group for PE. All other groups include students from the remaining full ability/attainment range.
Mixed-ability grouping and top and bottom sets	The highest and lowest ability/attaining students are taught in separate groups for PE. All other groups include students from the remaining full ability/attainment range.
Streaming/Banding	Students are grouped for most or all subjects, including PE, by a general measure of ability.
Other	Other.

Table 3. Characteristics of responding schools.

		Survey (n = 903) Frequency %		National (n = 3197) Frequency %
Location	East	100	(11.1%)	326	(10.2%)
	East Midlands	74	(8.2%)	283	(8.9%)
	Greater London	123	(13.6%)	503	(15.7%)
	North-East	65	(7.2%)	136	(4.3%)
	North-West	120	(13.3%)	457	(14.3%)
	South-East	165	(18.3%)	496	(15.5%)
	South-West	81	(9.0%)	296	(9.2%)
	West Midlands	97	(10.7%)	384	(12%)
	Yorkshire and Humber	78	(8.6%)	316	(9.9%)
School type	Academy converter	472	(52.3%)	1412	(44.2%)
	Academy sponsor-led	187	(20.7%)	709	(22.2%)
	Community	76	(8.4%)	360	(11.3%)
	Voluntary	65	(7.2%)	261	(8.2%)
	Foundation	52	(5.8%)	203	(6.3%)
	Free	50	(5.5%)	187	(5.8%)
	Technical college	1	(0.1%)	48	(1.5%)
	Studio school	0	(0%)	17	(0.5%)
Gender of entry	Co-educational	818	(90.6%)	2857	(89.4%)
	All girls	46	(5.1%)	190	(5.9%)
	All boys	39	(4.3%)	150	(4.7%)
Number of students	Less than 700	141	(15.6%)	627	(19.6%)
	From 701 to 1,300	507	(56.1%)	1682	(52.6%)
	More than 1,300	240	(26.6%)	781	(24.4%)
	Not recorded	15	(1.7%)	107	(3.4%)
Admission policy	Selective	44	(4.9%)	163	(5.1%)
	Non-selective	859	(95.1%)	3034	(94.9%)
Ofsted rating	Outstanding	128	(14.2%)	463	(14.5%)
	Good	468	(51.8%)	1644	(51.4%)
	Requires improvement	122	(13.5%)	433	(13.5%)
	Special measures	10	(1.1%)	50	(1.6%)
	Serious weaknesses	4	(0.4%)	36	(1.1%)
	Data is not available	171	(19.8%)	571	(17.9%)
Progress 8 score	Well above average	111	(12.3%)	387	(12.1%)
	Above average	150	(16.6%)	442	(13.9%)
	Average	330	(36.5%)	1117	(34.9%)
	Below average	139	(15.4%)	535	(16.7%)
	Well below average	73	(8.1%)	303	(9.5%)
	Data is not available	100	(11.1%)	413	(12.9%)
FSM proportion	Less than 15%	369	(40.9%)	1139	(35.6%)
	From 15% to 30%	361	(39.9%)	1301	(40.7%)
	More than 30%	156	(17.3%)	652	(20.4%)
	Not recorded	17	(1.9%)	105	(3.3%)

Where data is not available, this is because these schools recently changed their type (i.e. became an academy), re-opened after the closure of a previous school, or opened as a new school. A small proportion of mainstream state-funded secondary schools in England are academically selective grammar schools. The national data were calculated using school information from the Get Information about Schools website.

Table 4. Ability grouping types by year groups in PE in Key Stage 3.

Type of grouping	Year 7	Year 8	Year 9
Setting	346 (38.3%)	423 (46.8%)	435 (48.2%)
Fully mixed-ability grouping	400 (44.3%)	295 (32.7%)	259 (28.7%)
Mixed-ability grouping with a top set	40 (4.4%)	67 (7.4%)	73 (8.1%)
Mixed-ability grouping with a bottom set	13 (1.4%)	19 (2.1%)	19 (2.1%)
Mixed-ability grouping with top and bottom sets	24 (2.7%)	25 (2.8%)	33 (3.7%)
Streaming/Banding	85 (9.4%)	84 (9.3%)	80 (8.9%)
Other	34 (3.8%)	27 (3%)	42 (4.7%)
Not applicable	3 (0.3%)	3 (0.3%)	1 (0.1%)

This was a multiple selection question, so the answers are more than the total number of responses. Where respondents answered not applicable, this was either because their school was new and therefore did not have any students in Year 7 or Year 8, or their school was a University Technical College and only enrolled students aged 14 and over.

Table 5. Ability grouping types by year groups in PE in Key Stage 4.

Type of grouping	Year 10 (Core)	Year 10 GCSE/BTEC	Year 11 (Core)	Year 11 GCSE/BTEC
Setting	274 (30.3%)	129 (14.3%)	231 (25.6%)	131 (14.5%)
Fully mixed-ability grouping	375 (41.5%)	610 (67.6%)	408 (45.2%)	605 (67%)
Mixed-ability grouping with a top set	71 (7.9%)	18 (2%)	55 (6.1%)	21 (2.3%)
Mixed-ability grouping with a bottom set	11 (1.2%)	3 (0.3%)	10 (1.1%)	2 (0.2%)
Mixed-ability grouping with top and bottom sets	31 (3.4%)	8 (0.9%)	33 (3.7%)	8 (0.9%)
Streaming/Banding	68 (7.5%)	42 (4.7%)	69 (7.6%)	42 (4.7%)
Other	92 (10.2%)	63 (7%)	108 (12%)	61 (6.8%)
Not applicable	6 (0.7%)	35 (3.9%)	13 (1.4%)	39 (4.3%)

This was a multiple selection question, so the answers are more than the total number of responses. Where respondents answered not applicable, this was either because their school was new and therefore did not have any students in Key Stage 4, they did not offer or failed to recruit students to GCSE and/or BTEC PE courses, or they offered something different to core PE – typically a PE-related qualification such as the Sports Leadership Award or the Cambridge National in Sport Studies.

Table 6. Potential changes to current ability grouping practices in PE in Key Stage 3 and Key Stage 4.

Potential new grouping type	Key Stage 3	Key Stage 4
Setting	12 (1.3%)	10 (1.1%)
Fully mixed-ability grouping	14 (1.6%)	9 (1%)
Mixed-ability grouping with a top set	12 (1.3%)	4 (0.4%)
Mixed-ability grouping with a bottom set	3 (0.3%)	2 (0.2%)
Mixed-ability grouping with top and bottom sets	8 (0.9%)	3 (0.3%)
Streaming/Banding	2 (0.2%)	3 (0.3%)
Other	15 (1.7%)	10 (1.1%)

Table 7. Ability grouping preferences in PE in Key Stage 3 and Key Stage 4.

Grouping preference	Key Stage 3	Key Stage 4
Setting	391 (43.3%)	261 (28.9%)
Fully mixed-ability grouping	78 (8.6%)	94 (10.4%)
Mixed-ability grouping with a top set	51 (5.7%)	49 (5.4%)
Mixed-ability grouping with a bottom set	12 (1.3%)	7 (0.8%)
Mixed-ability grouping with top and bottom sets	23 (2.6%)	19 (2.1%)
Streaming/Banding	7 (0.8%)	11 (1.2%)
Other	32 (3.5%)	68 (7.5%)
No preference	309 (34.2%)	394 (43.7%)

Sukhnandan, L., and B. Lee. 1998. Streaming, Setting and Grouping by Ability: A Review of the Literature. Slough: National Foundation for Educational Research.

 Google Scholar

Wilkinson, S. D., and D. Penney. 2022b. “‘The Participation Group Means That I’m Low ability’: Students’ Perspectives on the Enactment of Mixed-Ability Grouping in Secondary School Physical Education.” British Educational Research Journal 48 (5): 932–951.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ireson, J., and S. Hallam. 2001. Ability Grouping in Education. London: SAGE Publications.

 Google Scholar

Ireson, J., H. Clark, and S. Hallam. 2002. “Constructing Ability Groups in the Secondary School: Issues in Practice.” School Leadership & Management 22 (2): 163–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/1363243022000007737.

 Google Scholar

Francis, B., B. Taylor, and A. Tereshchenko. 2020. Reassessing ‘Ability’ Grouping: Improving Practice for Equity and Attainment. London: Routledge.

 Google Scholar

Hallam, S., and J. Ireson. 2003. “Secondary School teachers’ Attitudes Towards and Beliefs About Ability Grouping.” The British Journal of Educational Psychology 73 (3): 343–356. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709903322275876.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Taylor, B., J. Hodgen, A. Tereshchenko, and G. Gutiérrez. 2022. “Attainment Grouping in English Secondary Schools: A National Survey of Current Practices.” Research Papers in Education 37 (2): 199–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2020.1836517.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar