Does setting disadvantage the most disadvantaged students?

What does the evidence really tell us?

Welcome to The Learning Spy. This the weekly post for paid subscribers. Subscription is set as low as Substack allows, just £3.50 per month.

Coming up in the next week…

• It’s artificial but is it intelligent? (FREE)

• Teaching in the Matrix: what the simulation argument reveals about education (FREE)

• Thinking critically about rhetorical questions (FREE)

• You are what you know - a 10,000 word essay on epistemology, thought and memory (£)

---

Few topics in education spark as much heat - or feel as intractable - as the debate over setting or streaming.¹ Should we group students by ability, or keep them mixed? It’s a question that splits staffrooms, divides departments, and resurfaces every few years with renewed urgency.

On one side, advocates claim setting provides a more personalised learning experience, with each group progressing at a pace suited to their abilities. On the other, critics argue that it enforces a rigid hierarchy, leaving disadvantaged students stuck in lower sets, with lowered expectations and limited opportunities. But the real question is: does setting truly hurt disadvantaged pupils, or is it a myth perpetuated by those who believe that ‘inclusive’ approaches are always best? With new evidence emerging, it’s time to dig deeper and separate fact from fiction.

Setting is based on a simple logic: students of similar abilities should be taught together. The idea is that high-achieving students can be pushed further, while those in the lower sets can receive more targeted support. In theory, it sounds like a winning formula, right?

The evidence on ability grouping appears relatively well-known. The EEF Toolkit summarises the research findings thus:

Overall, setting or streaming appears to benefit higher attaining pupils and be detrimental to the learning of mid-range and lower attaining learners. On average, it does not appear to be an effective strategy for raising the attainment of disadvantaged pupils, who are more likely to be assigned to lower groups.

When students are placed in lower sets, the consequences often go beyond just academic challenges. For many, it means being branded as ‘slow,’ or ‘thick.’ This stigma is powerful, influencing students’ self-perception and, crucially, their academic outcomes. Critics argue that this self-fulfilling prophecy results in disengagement, behavioural issues, and a lack of motivation. For lower-achieving students, the lack of challenge, combined with the perception that they’re not expected to succeed, becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.

This is vividly illustrated in an episode of The Simpsons where Bart Simpson is placed in a remedial class after his new school, which is more academically advanced, deems his skills below standard. Here he is spotting the fatal flaw in the system:

Bart’s experience serves as a powerful reminder of the risks associated with placing students in lower sets too early. Once labelled, they may struggle to escape the constraints of that label. It appears that children who are deemed to be ‘low ability’ fall behind pupils with equivalent prior attainment at the rate of 1-2 months per year when placed in ability groups. Conversely, high attainers make, on average, an additional 1-2 months progress per year when they are set. There’s much speculation about why this might be. Here are a few popular theories:

1. Low ability groups are assigned less capable teachers. Top sets are often seen as a reward, bottom sets a punishment. If low attainers are viewed as unlikely to make good progress then it might not make strategic sense to assign them your best teachers.

2. When children are corralled together by ability, they learn that they are either ‘bright’ or ‘thick’ and then rise or sink to meet these expectations.

3. Behaviour in ‘bottom sets’ prevents students from learning. It’s a continuing scandal that some schools continue to allow bottom sets to be sinks of low expectations and poor behaviour.