Session Information
05 SES 08 A, Metrics and Equity
Paper Session
Contribution
The Czech education system is characterised by early tracking. It tracks students officially at the age of 11, when about 10 % of students transit to so-called multi-year grammar schools. There are, however, also different forms of hidden tracking – specialised classes that often track children from the first grade of primary school. Most often these are classes with extended English teaching or bilingual classes. In some of these classes parents pay extra fees, even though they are part of the public system. There is a lot of evidence that both the multi-year grammar schools and specialised classes are primarily tools of social selection that enable educated and financially well-off parents to secure superior educational opportunities for their children in the public education system. Tracking is, however, supported not only by these parents, but also by many teachers, as they believe that in a more homogeneous environment they are able to provide better services to all students. In an attempt to meet the needs of these parents and teachers and at the same time to respond to criticism that tracking contributes to the deepening of educational inequalities, many schools are now starting to sort and group children according to their performance for the main subjects within the grades. The aim of the research presented in this paper is to investigate this type of ability grouping in Czech schools.
From research carried out mainly in Anglo-Saxon countries (e.g. Gamoran & Mare, 1989; Gamoran, 1992; Kerckhoff, 1986; Slavin, 1990; Hanushek & Woessman, 2005) there is ample evidence that tracking based on the cognitive abilities of pupils does not improve overall educational results, but increases the differences between pupils from higher and lower tracks. Pupils in higher tracks achieve better results than they would achieve in a comprehensive system and pupils in lower tracks the opposite. Research studies further show that the distribution into tracks is not fair: parents who care about their children’s education are able to ensure elective studies for their children even in a situation where they would not be accepted for these on the basis of their achievement. Research also shows that in higher tracks pupils have better conditions for education: better equipment, better teachers, and a more favourable learning climate. All this increases the injustice of differentiated systems (Gamoran & Nystrand, 1991; Oakes, 2005).
Studies comparing tracking, in which pupils are divided in some phase of their studies and continue to study permanently in differentiated classes, and ability grouping, where pupils are divided according to ability only into the main subjects across grades and spend the rest of their school time in heterogeneous classes, agree that the latter has a lower impact on inequality. Some studies report that ability grouping increases the average achievement, i.e. it is beneficial for students in all groups (e.g. Slavin 1987, Steenbergen-Hu et al., 2016). However, most studies agree that pupils in the low-ability group achieve worse results than they would in a heterogeneous setting because having high-achieving classmates is associated with increased achievement (Ireson et al., 2005; Francis et al., 2017; Saleh et al., 2005; Scholfield, 2010) and that the students in lower groups develop a lower self-concept (Ireson & Hallam, 2009).
The goal of this research is to contribute to knowledge about the implementation of ability grouping with evidence from Czech schools. The study seeks answers to the following research questions: To what extent do the quality of teaching, the curriculum presented, the demands placed on pupils, and the learning climate differ in individual groups? Are the differences between groups or subjects consistent or do they differ between schools/subjects?
Method
The research design was a multi-case study of five basic schools (basic schools include five years of primary and four years of lower secondary education) which apply ability grouping in at least two main subjects. The research took place in a city school in the capital city with 600 pupils, a suburban school on the outskirts of the capital with 780 pupils, a satellite school in a small town within driving distance of the capital with 870 pupils, a rural school in a relatively poor region in the western part of the country with 170 pupils, and a small town school with 450 pupils in a rich region in the eastern part of the country. The research focused on the sixth or seventh grade, depending on the grade in which ability grouping occurred. Ability grouping took place in English, Czech, and mathematics, while some schools differentiated only in mathematics and English. School documents (including the school’s curriculum, timetables, and information on intra-group transfers) and test results from tests administered by a private agency that offers feedback testing to schools were analysed. Furthermore, in-depth interviews were conducted with the school management, with teachers teaching in ability groups, and with three to five representatives of pupils from individual groups. In schools, lessons of the main subjects were videorecorded, with three consecutive lessons in each group being recorded, with all the groups recording at the same time (within two weeks). The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded in the MAXQDA software using open coding. The recordings of lessons were coded using the International Comparative Analysis of Learning and Teaching (ICALT) observation instrument, which was enriched with an additional set of subject-specific codes. Coding was performed by two or three independent coders, who then unified their evaluations. The coder agreement for individual lessons was 85-95 percent. The data was analysed within individual cases, followed by a cross-case analysis.
Expected Outcomes
At the time of the submission of the abstract, only preliminary analyses were available. The schools that were monitored made great efforts to eliminate the negative consequences of ability grouping. They consistently ensured the achievement of the same educational goals in all groups and tried to achieve fair grading so that pupils’ grades were not affected by belonging to any of the groups. The groups were consistently labelled in such a way that the label did not evoke a higher value for any of the groups. Great attention was also paid to the division into groups in such a way as to best correspond to the results and potential of the pupils. The majority of the pupils and teachers perceived ability grouping positively. However, it turns out that factors other than the students’ cognitive results still play a role in the assignment of pupils to groups, e.g. parents’ attempts to place pupils in a less advanced group so that they have better grades on their report cards, which will subsequently help them when transferring to secondary school; failure in the placement test; the wish of the pupils to stay in the same group as their friends. Transfers between groups are possible but occur exceptionally. The analyses of the lessons showed that there are great differences between individual groups in terms of demands, methods, and forms of teaching. From this evidence it is clear that a child’s placement has a huge impact on their learning experience.
References
Francis, B., Archer, L., Hodgen, J., Pepper, D., Taylor, B., & Travers, M.-C. 2017. Exploring the relative lack of impact of research on ‘ability grouping’ in England: a discourse analytic account. Cambridge Journal of Education, 47 (1), 1-17. Gamoran, A. 1992. Synthesis of Research/Is Ability Grouping Equitable? Educational Leadership, 50 (2), 11-17. Gamoran, A., & Nystrand, M. 1991. Background and Instructional Effects on Achievement in Eighth-Grade English and Social Studies. Journal of Research on Adolescence 1 (3), 277-300. Gamoran, A., & Mare, D. R. 1989. Secondary School Tracking and Educational Inequality: Compensation, Reinforcement, or Neutrality? The American Journal of Sociology 94 (5), 1146-1183. Hanushek, E. A., & Woessman, L. 2005. Does Educational Tracking Affect Performance and Inequality? Differences-in-Differences Evidence across Countries. Ifo Working Paper No. 1 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. Ireson, J., & Hallam, S. 2009. Academic self-concepts in adolescence: Relations with achievement and ability grouping in schools. Learning and Instruction, 19 (3), 201-213. Kerckhoff, A. C. 1986. Effect of Ability Grouping in British Secondary Schools. American Sociological Review 51, 842-858. Oakes, J. 2005. Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality (2nd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Saleh, M., Lazonder, A., & De Jong, T. 2005. Effects of within-class ability grouping on social interaction, achievement, and motivation. Instructional Science, 3 (2), 105-119. Schofield, J. W. 2010. International evidence on ability grouping with curriculum differentiation and the achievement gap in secondary schools. Teachers College Record, 112 (5), 1492-1528. Slavin, R. E. 1990. Achievement Effects of Ability Grouping in Secondary Schools: A Best-Evidence Synthesis. Review of Educational Research 60 (3), 471-499. Steenbergen-Hu, S., Makel, M.C., & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. 2016. What One Hundred Years of Research Says About the Effects of Ability Grouping and Acceleration on K–12 Students’ Academic Achievement: Findings of Two Second-Order Meta-Analyses Review of Educational Research, 86 (4), 849-899.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.