The intemperate language of this piece in The Times Educational Supplement, based on a report by the Director of the London Institute of Education and no fewer than seven of her colleagues, shows just how deeply the issue of grouping pupils divides people professionally concerned with education. For these authors, who include three professors, grouping pupils according to their learning needs and abilities is tantamount to a physical assault, unsupported by evidence, and and example of "doxa". I had to look the word up, and it means a popular idea without foundation.
To the Director's opponents, with whom I agree, setting is essential if bright children are not to be held back, and those in need of help are to be given teaching matched to their learning needs. It is deliberately misleading to say that setting is not supported by evidence. The most recent research evidence, based on data from 1999, showed benefits to pupils from setting in maths and English, a picture which was hidden by distorted presentation of the data. In modern languages, data has deliberately not been collected, as it would certainly show large benefits to setting among higher-attaining pupils. Look at the peformance of grammar school pupils in languages, compared with the dismal record of comprehensive schools, particularly at A level, and the pattern is clear. Mossbourne's top sets obtained 24 and 28 A* grades in German and Spanish respectively in 2010, a performance I challenge any other comprehensive school to match.
The Institute's angry study stems from the fact that it is out of step with teachers and pupils over setting and wants to believe that its view is correct. The reason it is not correct is that its attempt to deny more able pupils the opportunity to maximise their attainment is a barrier to social justice, in that it deprives these pupils of the right to do full justice to their talents and abilities. The authors make no attempt to consider the effect of setting on standards, but consider their view of social justice to be self-evidently correct. It is not.