Given what I know, why am I still grouping by ‘ability’ in primary maths?

Written By: Author(s): Elisabeth Royde
7 min read
My own study was evidence that the culture of 'ability grouping' constrains children’s learning
Three years ago, in the spring term of my PGCE training, I was asked to complete a research study into an aspect of inclusion. I wanted to investigate an important issue in primary education, so it would have a wider relevance and application than my own practice.  I recalled something that my mother had said when she was working as a Teaching Assistant: The teachers never say it, but even the Circle table have worked out that the more sides you have, the better you are.  They know Hexagons are the best. Reflecting on this now, through the prism of fixed/growth mindset training á la Carol Dweck, I can see the irony. My mother was despairing of the practice of setting children by ‘ability’, even into table groups, as she believed that it limited and demoralised the as-yet lower-achieving groups. Yet she implicitly agreed with the Circles’ assessment of themselves as the ‘worst’ at maths, and the Hexagons as the ‘best’. As such, I decided that my research project would

Join us or sign in now to view the rest of this page

You're viewing this site as a guest, which only allows you to view a limited amount of content.

To view this page and get access to all our resources, join the Chartered College of Teaching (it's free for trainee teachers and half price for ECTs) or log in if you're already a member.

This article was published in April 2018 and reflects the terminology and understanding of research and evidence in use at the time. Some terms and conclusions may no longer align with current standards. We encourage readers to approach the content with an understanding of this context.

References
0 0 votes
Please Rate this content
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Other content you may be interested in