![[PDF]](/pb-assets/Icons/adobe-pdf-icon-1498649896243.png){kind=icon}
Abstract
Within the United Kingdom and internationally, the practice of separating pupils by ability endures as a characteristic feature of mathematics and science classrooms. Although there is extensive international research literature on ability grouping within classroom-based subjects, limited research exists in the context of physical education (PE). The purpose of this paper is to explore ability grouping in PE in North East of England schools. Specifically, the paper examined the prevalence of setting and within-class ability grouping in PE, the contexts of its use, how sets and within-class ability grouping were established, and the rationales used to justify decisions about setting and within-class ability grouping in the subject. Data were collected via a web-based survey. The electronic survey was sent to 194 PE Heads of Department from North East of England schools catering for pupils in Key Stage 3 (ages 11–14) and/or Key Stage 4 (ages 14–16). The results indicated that setting is embedded in the organisational and pedagogical practices of PE in many secondary schools. Ability also served as a basis upon which to organise pupils within mixed-ability and setted PE lessons. A variety of other factors, including friendship and behaviour, were also reported as factors influencing grouping of pupils in PE lessons. Our discussion directs attention to issues arising for policy and practice in PE and points to the merits of further exploration and analysis of between-class and within-class grouping practices in the subject.
References
Section:
|
Araújo, M (2007) Modernising the comprehensive principle’: Selection, setting and the institutionalisation of educational failure. British Journal of Sociology of Education 28(2): 241–257. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Ball, S (1981) Beachside Comprehensive: A Case-study of Secondary Schooling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Benjamin, S (2003) What counts as success? Hierarchical discourses in a girls’ comprehensive school. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 24(1): 105–118. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Boaler, J (1997a) Setting, social class and survival of the quickest. British Educational Research Journal 23(5): 575–595. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Boaler, J (1997b) When even the winners are losers: Evaluating the experiences of top set students. Journal of Curriculum Studies 29(2): 165–182. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Boaler, J, Wiliam, D, Brown, M (2000) Students’ experiences of ability grouping – Disaffection, polarisation and the construction of failure. British Educational Research Journal 26(5): 631–648. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Carbonaro, M, Bainbridge, J, Wolodko, B (2002) Using internet surveys to gather data from teachers: Trials and tribulations. Australian Journal of Educational Technology 18(3): 275–292. Google Scholar | |
|
Check, J, Schutt, RK (2012) Research Methods in Education. London: SAGE. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Conservative Party (2007) Raising the Bar, Closing the Gap. London: Author. Google Scholar | |
|
Conservative Party (2010) The Conservative Manifesto 2010. London: Author. Google Scholar | |
|
Conservative Party (2015) The Conservative Manifesto 2015. London: Author. Google Scholar | |
|
DfEE (1997) Excellence in Schools. London: HMSO. Google Scholar | |
|
DfEE (2000) Specialist Schools Programme: Sports Colleges Applications. London: Author. Google Scholar | |
|
DfES (2005) Higher Standards, Better Schools for All. London: HMSO. Google Scholar | |
|
Dix, KL, Anderson, J (2000) Distance no longer a barrier: Using the internet as a survey tool in educational research. International Education Journal 1(2): 83–93. Google Scholar | |
|
Dunne, M, Gazeley, L (2008) Teachers, social class and underachievement. British Journal of Sociology of Education 29(5): 451–463. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Evans, J (2004) Making a difference? Education and ‘ability’ in physical education. European Physical Education Review 10(1): 95–108. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Evans, J, Davies, B (1986) Sociology, schooling and physical education. In: Evans, J (ed) Physical Education, Sport and Schooling: Studies in the Sociology of Physical Education. London: Falmer Press, pp.11–37. Google Scholar | |
|
Fitz, J, Davies, B, Evans, J (2006) Educational Policy and Social Reproduction: Class Inscription and Symbolic Control. London: Routledge. Google Scholar | |
|
Gillard, D (2009) Us and them: A history of pupil grouping policies in England’s schools. Forum 51(1): 49–71. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Gillborn, D, Youdell, D (2000) Rationing Education: Policy, Practice, Reform and Equity. Buckingham: Open University Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Greenlaw, C, Brown-Welty, S (2009) A comparison of web-based and paper-based survey methods: Testing assumptions of survey mode and response cost. Evaluation Review 33(5): 464–480. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Hallam, S, Deathe, K (2002) Ability grouping: Year group differences in self-concept and attitudes of secondary school pupils. International Journal of Research and Method in Education 25(1): 7–17. Google Scholar | |
|
Hallam, S, Ireson, J (2003) Secondary school teachers’ attitudes towards and beliefs about ability grouping. British Journal of Educational Psychology 73(3): 343–356. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
Hallam, S, Ireson, J (2005) Secondary school teachers’ pedagogic practices when teaching mixed and structured ability classes. Research Papers in Education 20(1): 3–24. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Hallam, S, Ireson, J, Davies, J (2004) Grouping practices in the primary school: What influences change? British Educational Research Journal 30(1): 117–140. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Hallam, S, Ireson, J, Lister, V. (2003) Ability grouping practices in the primary school: A survey. Educational Studies 29(1): 69–83. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Hallam, S, Parsons, S (2013a) The incidence and make up of ability grouped sets in the UK primary school. Research Papers in Education 28(4): 393–420. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Hallam, S, Parsons, S (2013b) Prevalence of streaming in UK primary schools: Evidence from the Millennium Cohort Study. British Educational Research Journal 39(3): 514–544. Google Scholar | ISI | |
|
Hallam, S, Rogers, L, Ireson, J (2008) Ability grouping in the secondary school: Attitudes of teachers of practically based subjects. International Journal of Research and Method in Education 31(2): 181–192. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Hay, PJ, lisahunter (2006) Please Mr Hay, what are my poss(abilities)?’: Legitimation of ability through physical education practices. Sport, Education and Society 11(3): 293–310. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Hay, PJ, Macdonald, D (2010) Evidence for the social construction of ability in physical education. Sport, Education and Society 15(1): 1–18. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Ireson, J, Hallam, S (1999) Raising standards: Is ability grouping the answer? Oxford Review of Education 25(3): 1–24. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Ireson, J, Hallam, S, Hurley, C (2005) What are the effects of ability grouping on GCSE attainment? British Educational Research Journal 31(4): 443–458. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Labour Party (1997) New Labour: Because Britain Deserves Better. London: Author. Google Scholar | |
|
Lacey, C (1970) Hightown Grammar. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Lines, G, Stidder, G (2003) Reflections on the mixed and single sex PE debate. In: Hayes, S, Stidder, G (eds) Equity and Inclusion in Physical Education and Sport. London: Routledge, pp.65–90. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Loveless, T (2013) The resurgence of ability grouping and persistence of tracking. Part II of the 2013 Brown Center Report on American Education. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Google Scholar | |
|
Macqueen, SE (2013) Grouping for inequity. International Journal of Inclusive Education 17(3): 295–309. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Marks, R (2012) Discourses of ability and primary school mathematics: Production, reproduction and transformation. PhD Thesis, King’s College, London. Google Scholar | |
|
Marks, R (2013) The blue table means you don’t have a clue’: The persistence of fixed-ability thinking and practices in primary mathematics in English schools. Forum 55(1): 29–42. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Muijs, D, Dunne, M (2010) Setting by ability – Or is it? A quantitative study of determinants of set placement in English secondary schools. Educational Research 52(4): 391–407. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Ofsted (1998) Setting in primary schools: A report from the Office of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Schools. London: HMSO. Google Scholar | |
|
Ofsted (2001) Annual report of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Schools, standards and quality in education. London: HMSO. Google Scholar | |
|
Patton, MQ (2002) Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Google Scholar | |
|
Penney, D, Evans, J (1997) Naming the game. Discourse and domination in physical education and sport in England and Wales. European Physical Education Review 3(1): 21–32. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Penney, D, Houlihan, B (2003) Specialist colleges national monitoring and evaluation research project: First national survey report. Loughborough University, Institute of Youth Sport, School of Sport and Exercise Sciences. Google Scholar | |
|
Penney, D and lisahunter (2006) (Dis)abling the (health and) physical in education: Ability, curriculum and pedagogy. Sport, Education and Society 11(3): 205–209. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Press Association (2014) Schools ‘face compulsory setting’, Daily Mail. Available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-2742212/Schools-face-compulsory-setting.html (accessed 1 September 2015). Google Scholar | |
|
Reay, D (1998) Setting the agenda: The growing impact of market forces on pupil grouping in British secondary schooling. Journal of Curriculum Studies 30(5): 545–558. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Slavin, RE (1987) Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: A best evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research 57(3): 293–336. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Slavin, RE (1990) Achievement effects of ability grouping in secondary schools: A best evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research 60(3): 471–490. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Stobart, G (2008) Testing Times: The Uses and Abuses of Assessment. London: Routledge. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Swabey, K, Penney, D (2011) Using discursive strategies, playing policy games and shaping the future of physical education. Sport, Education and Society 16(1): 67–87. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Venkatakrishnan, H, Wiliam, D (2003) Tracking and mixed-ability grouping in secondary school mathematics classrooms: A case study. British Educational Research Journal 29(2): 180–204. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Wiliam, D, Bartholomew, H (2004) It’s not which school but which set you’re in that matters: The influence of ability grouping practices on student progress in mathematics. British Educational Research Journal 30(2): 279–295. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Wilkinson, SD, Penney, D (2014) The effects of setting on classroom teaching and student learning in mainstream mathematics, English and science lessons: A critical review of the literature in England. Educational Review 66(4): 411–427. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Wintour, P (2014) Compulsory setting: schools face being forced to separate pupils by ability, The Guardian. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/03/schools-separate-pupils-ability-setting (accessed 1 September 2015). Google Scholar |
