Educational triage and ability-grouping in primary mathematics: a case-study of the impacts on low-attaining pupils

Abstract

This case-study, drawing on an unanticipated theme arising from a wider study of ability-grouping in primary mathematics, documents some of the consequences of educational triage in the final year of one primary school. The paper discusses how a process of educational triage, as a response to accountability pressures, is justified by teachers on the basis of shared theories about ability and potential. Attainment gains show that some practices associated with the triaging process work for the school, pushing selected pupils to achieve the Government target for the end of primary school. However, other practices appear to coincide with reduced mathematical gains for the lowest attaining pupils and a widening of the attainment gap. This case-study examines the mechanisms behind this, focusing on resource allocation, and assumptions about learners and their potential. The paper suggests a need to create dissonance, challenging shared assumptions, such as fixed-ability, which currently support triage processes.

Keywords:

• ability-grouping
• educational triage
• primary mathematics

Acknowledgements

This research would not have been possible without the willing participation of the schools, teachers and pupils. The study was funded by a studentship from the Economic and Social Research Council (award number: PTA-031-2006-00387).

Notes

1. All names within this paper are pseudonyms.

2. Ability is presented without quotation marks to aid readability. The reader should assume that the legitimacy of the concept is continually questioned.

3. The study originally had Rhiannon as a focal-pupil. She was moved, due to school reorganisation, to Set 3. James was added to the focal-pupils for group-interviews.

4. n represents the number of pupils completing both pre- and post- tests and hence is lower than the total number of pupils in Year 6.

5. An ANOVA test suggests significant differences between the gains made by each set, F(3,67) = 4.503, p = 0.006. A Bonferroni post-hoc test, suitable for small numbers of comparisons and providing control over Type 1 errors (Field, 2005), shows that the differences between the gains made by Set 3 and Set 4 are significant at p = 0.01.