Search

Despite extensive research on attainment grouping, the impact of attainment grouping on pupil attainment remains poorly understood and contested. This paper presents evidence from a study conducted with 2944 12–13 year olds, from 76 schools in England, who were allocated to between‐class attainment groups ('setting') in English and mathematics over the first 2 years of secondary schooling. After controlling for prior attainment, pupils in the top set performed significantly better than pupils in the middle and bottom sets in both English and mathematics. The findings indicate a widening gap in attainment, especially in the case of English. Findings, especially in the case of mathematics, provide more evidence of a relative benefit for pupils placed in top sets than a relative detriment for those in bottom sets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study addresses the issue of educational inadequacy and inequity for disadvantaged minority students. It estimates desired national standards and examines interrelated gaps in key school–teacher resources and mathematics achievement by linking national education data sets (National Assessment of Educational Progress [NAEP], Common Core of Data, and Schools and Staffing Survey). Although poor minority students’ chances to meet the national mathematics proficiency standard are undermined by the lack of their access to qualified teachers and adequate school funding, it turns out that the adequacy-based (absolute) gaps are much larger than the equity-based (relative) gaps. Meeting the NAEP Grade 8 mathematics proficiency standard requires substantial increases in per-pupil education spending (from $6,493 to $7,197 in year 2000 dollars) and in-field mathematics teaching rate (from 49% to 91%) across the nation. Research and policy implications are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]