Discover how the latest research findings on admissions, attainment grouping, and internal exclusion practices impact the decision-making processes of school business leaders and drive positive changes in education.
In August 2023, there were 2,397 academy trusts, home to over 10,000 schools in England, and these numbers are on the rise. The educational landscape is evolving with the proliferation of multi-academy trusts (MATs), sparking a demand for transparency and accountability across various educational outcomes.
The Decisions in Education in England Panel (DEEP) survey was launched as a national endeavour to gain a more intricate understanding of the decisions, actions, and policies currently shaping schools. This survey is a pivotal part of a multi-year mixed methods project that seeks to unravel the characteristics of effective school groups, including MATs. The project also involves crafting a set of quantitative measures derived from administrative data, ultimately equipping school leaders and policymakers with a deeper understanding of how the most effective school groups operate.
Admissions: Who gets in?
In the intricate web of school admissions, the schools in England have the liberty to determine their oversubscription criteria, provided they align with the school admissions code. The survey spans both primary and secondary schools, revealing a common trend: priority is often given to students with siblings at the school or those residing nearby. Interestingly, about 25% of primary schools appear to prioritise students with complex needs, a stark contrast to the mere 10% among secondary schools. Instead, secondary schools tend to tilt the scale towards children of staff and pupils from feeder schools.
Prioritising family and proximity can often be attributed to practical considerations, fostering a sense of community rather than focusing on inclusion or equity. However, the shadow of residential segregation looms large. The distance is not a level playing field; families with greater means tend to reside closer to the most sought-after schools. In our quantitative research, we aim to delve further into how well schools represent their local communities and whether admissions policies have an impact on this representation.
Journey of attainment grouping
Findings from the DEEP survey reveal that as students advance through their educational journey, they tend to be further categorised based on their prior attainment. Students are divided into four categories: mixed ability, setting, streaming, and within-class grouping. Setting involves grouping students by ability in specific subjects, streaming groups them based on ability for most of their lessons, and within-class grouping sees mixed-ability students working together.
In the reception phase, students are generally not grouped by their attainment, with approximately 90% of surveyed school leaders endorsing mixed ability. As the primary years unfold, attainment grouping becomes more prevalent, particularly within-class grouping. Nevertheless, mixed ability still holds its ground. However, as students reach secondary school, the scenario shifts. Mixed-ability groups decline, making way for setting, a practice widely adopted at key stage 4.
The impact of attainment grouping on student performance remains a subject of debate. Existing research hints at potential adverse social and academic effects for students in lower sets, who are often from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds. Conversely, higher sets tend to experience elevated attainment rates, potentially deepening classroom inequality.
The enigma of internal exclusion
Turning our attention to the realm of internal exclusion, this practice differs from fixed-term exclusion, where students are sent home, shifting responsibility to parents or carers. Internal exclusion keeps students within the school but isolates them from their regular classes. Surprisingly, there is no standardised framework governing its usage, and national statistics on its prevalence, duration, or the activities of excluded students remain elusive. The rationale behind this approach is that it doesn’t serve as a reward, but rather as a structured environment for continued education and supervision.
The DEEP survey highlights the prevalence of internal exclusion, with less than 3% of sampled secondary schools reporting its complete absence, compared to nearly a quarter of primary schools. Secondary schools tend to rely on designated ‘isolation exclusion units,’ while primary schools commonly utilise the senior leader’s office for this purpose. Only a few schools abstain from any form of internal exclusion, predominantly among primary schools. The diversity in internal exclusion practices may indicate adaptability to address individual student needs, but it also suggests a potential lack of clarity regarding best practices.
The findings from Wave 2 of the DEEP survey unveil a multifaceted education landscape. Students’ grouping by prior attainment intensifies as they progress through their schooling. Admissions priority often leans towards siblings and proximity rather than student need. Internal exclusion, a somewhat enigmatic practice, exhibits a wide spectrum of applications, especially in secondary schools.
These findings underscore the need to critically examine school policies and practices and their potential influence on student outcomes. School leaders can drive positive change by continually analysing their policies and prioritising inclusion in their decision-making processes.
Be the first to comment