CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 70School Choice and PerformanceCritical Race Theory in EducationEducation, Achievement, and Giftedness

The misallocation of students to academic sets in maths: A study of secondary schools in England

Open access
Connolly, Paul, Taylor, Becky, Francis, Becky, Archer, Louise, Hodgen, Jeremy, Mazenod, Anna, Tereshchenko, Antonina·2019·British Educational Research Journal
DOI 10.1002/berj.3530
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Drawing upon data gathered from 9301 Year 7 students (12–13 years old) from 46 secondary schools in England, this study represents the first larger‐scale attempt to compare their actual set allocations in maths with the counterfactual position where their allocation to sets is based solely on their prior attainment at the end of primary school [using their Key Stage 2 (KS2) fine‐grained scores in maths]. Through such an analysis, the study found that nearly a third of students (31.2%) had been misallocated to lower or higher sets than their KS2 results would have warranted. Beyond this, school setting practices were found to exacerbate differences in set allocation in relation to gender and ethnicity, but not socioeconomic background. The odds of girls being misallocated to lower sets in maths than their prior attainment would warrant was found to be 1.5 times higher than that for boys. Similarly, the odds of Black students being misallocated to lower sets was 2.4 times higher than for White students, whilst the odds of Asian students being misallocated to lower maths sets was 1.7 times higher than for White students. The article concludes by reflecting on the significant role that setting by attainment in secondary school can play in exacerbating already established patterns of educational inequalities in gender and ethnicity.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/berj.3530

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Students who are expected to do poorly because they are subjected to descriptive and prescriptive negative stereotypes are more likely to get placed in lower sets than their ability warrants.

    “Students who are expected to do poorly because they are subjected to descriptive and prescriptive negative stereotypes are more likely to get placed in lower sets than their ability warrants (Autin, Batruch, & Butera, 2015;Batruch et al., 2017;Connolly et al., 2019;Francis, Hodgen, Craig, Taylor, Archer, Mazenod, Tereshchenko, & Connolly, 2019a;Muntoni & Retelsdorf, 2018).”

    From Tackling Educational Inequalities with Social Psychology: Identities, Contexts, and Interventions (2021) · cites this paper as Connolly et al., 2019

    The Discussion (page unavailable) reports that Black and Asian students were more likely than White students to be placed in lower maths sets than their prior attainment warranted. It also says that downward misallocation of working-class students fits earlier findings about stereotyping and labelling. The paper does not establish that descriptive and prescriptive negative stereotypes caused the misallocations it observed, or that the affected students were expected to do poorly. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 47 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Archer, L. & Francis, B. (2007) Understanding ethnic minority achievement (London, Routledge).
  2. Bartholomew, H. (2000) Negotiating identity in the community of the mathematics classroom, paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Cardiff, 7-10 September.
  3. Dar, Y. & Resh, N. (1994) Separating and mixing students for learning: Concepts and research, Pedagogisch Tijdschrift, 19(2), 109-126.
  4. Oakes, J. (1985) How schools structure inequality (New Haven, CT, Yale University Press). OECD (2013) Selecting and grouping students, in: PISA 2012 results: What makes schools successful? (vol. IV: Resources, policies and practices) (Paris, OECD Publishing), 71-92.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Connolly, P., Taylor, B., Francis, B., Archer, L., Hodgen, J., Mazenod, A., & Tereshchenko, A.
Affiliations
  • Queen's University Belfast (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Connolly, Paul
ORCID
Venue
British Educational Research Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-06-10
Volume
45
Issue
4
Pages
873-897
ISSN
  • 0141-1926 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-3518
DOI
10.1002/berj.3530
OpenAlex
W2947295668
Cited by
70
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 7
FWCI
16.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • British Educational Research Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Ulster University Research Portal (Ulster University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Research Portal (Queen's University Belfast) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
Education Endowment Foundation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › School Choice and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Critical Race Theory in Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
Keywords
academic settings, ability grouping, mathematics achievement, secondary schools, prior attainment, Key Stage 2, gender differences, ethnic disparities, educational inequality, Year 7 students

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review