To think this is elitist?

This was standard when I was at school. It meant that the kids with no interest in being educated were kept away from the swots. I was in too tier for all my O level classes

Dd school only sets for maths (but d&t is in diff groups too). Her tutor group behaviour is awful!
Regularly sent to behaviour unit. Girls mostly.
But her maths set 2 is really loud snd chatty.

If its an academic school a kid could easily be set 2 but nationally 10-15 percentile and would have benefitted from setting.
The difference between sets can be huge and lower sets were weeks behind by end of term 1.
And that would be even more the case with only a set 1

. How exactly would op school support children who did manage to move up to cover missed content? As dc had zero help in this situation...
The lower sets are much more girl heavy.

I thought all schools did this. Top set is stretched, bottom set supported and middle try to get highest achievers to bring up the lower achievers because the gap isn’t that big.

@SomethingBetterChange that is exactly what my son's school does. After exams, the top 30 based on those exam results go into the top set for any given subject ..... The school has been v open and transparent about that. There are 7 sets for subjects, the lower down you go the smaller the class sizes.

It would be naive of parents to think we just look at test scores and put the top 10 in one set, the next 10 in another, the next 10 in another and so on or whatever numbers are involved. Because it just doesn't work like that.

That's broadly our starting point of course but it's not the only consideration.

It's not fair on the children who are "2nd set" to be seated with kids who can't write a sentence or are disrupting the whole class.

Would there be any movement between these sets?

What if pupils in the 2nd set suddenly came on more academically....would they all be moved to the 1st set?

Would pupils in the 1st set who end up struggling be moved down?

I'd be very surprised if they are teaching those working very low or below keystage in those groups. Those children require a more personalised provision and often access the curriculum differently.

They might just not have advertised that to parents for various reasons.

But once you remove the very top and very bottom children, the range of the rest isn't unmanageably great.

Setting too rigidly can also be damaging because the lower middle children (for example) don't have more able children to bounce ideas of and the range of discussion is quite limited. Eg in English, they are only exposed to the thematic analysis or the vocabulary that they and their peers are capable of generating. Sometimes they need the inspiration. We're quite capable of supporting a range of lower to higher middles because the range isn't generally that great.

For example, there are children in my maths group (top) who are streets ahead and others who it was a fine line whether they were in my group or the one below. You can hear them explaining concepts to each other and rationalising thought processes - even in the top set there will be a couple who stand out as being well ahead of the others and a couple you're trying out to see how they get on. In the middle groups, this is more beneficial because, as I said earlier, the higher middles benefit from explaining their thinking and the lower middles benefit from hearing it from a peer and refining their own thinking.

Not only that but where do you draw the line? There isn't a simple and clear distinction between the majority of children. All of these groups/sets are 'best fit' because they're children and the decision is based on a number of factors - ie not just how they perform in a test. Eg confidence, personal pace, application/transference of skills, clarity of thinking.

We rank the children based on assessment scores and then have a discussion based on several factors before setting.

It would be naive of parents to think we just look at test scores and put the top 10 in one set, the next 10 in another, the next 10 in another and so on or whatever numbers are involved. Because it just doesn't work like that.

No one wants any child to be held back or struggle.

Yep, lots. I'm primary but we review sets half termly and expect children to move.

I am just quietly boggling at a school with 5 teachers for every subject including music and drama. I assume that many of them are non-specialists?

@FawnFrenchieMum sorry - you're quite right I read in haste. All sets should be ability based to ensure your child is not held back. There is always evening or weekend tuition available if needed but it obviously costs...

@SomethingBetterChange so you are agreeing that no sets, which is what the OPs school are changing to (except for top set), is the hardest to teach this backing up what OP is saying? I stand by my view that it's the middle ability/slightly brighter that are disadvantaged in this scenario.

There are always outliers, motivated DC that still achieve however how many of these children 'check out' or become unmotivated having to deal with a very mixed class.

Surely it's fairer on teachers to give a smaller ability range so they can focus and bring out the best in pupils. I'm not saying they can't teach h a broad ability range but why do it?!

Presumably this is a fluid situation?

They can be moved into or out of Set 1 depending on how they manage over the year.

Many schools assess at the end of the year and adjust the sets.

The concern is once it is set there will be no movement between the top sets and others.

Truly no one ever moves sets would be very unusual ime. There's lots of movements in my experience, among my DC, from what I have heard from others.

Would you call it 'elitist' if it was football, tennis, cricket, music, etc? Where some very talented kids were practising together and 'accelerated'? Or is it because it's academic subjects that you object?

You're using 'elitist' as a derogatory label when others might applaud it. We have elite athletes and that's a good thing, yes?

If your child was in the top set, would you be unhappy then?

There may be a longer term plan to take their GCSEs in Year 10- some private schools have done this for years. (If the GCSE still exists in 3 years.)

But is it, or is it teaching the highest and lowest ability children to their ability and the average middle ground child just plods along having the best of no worlds?

In a completely mixed class, we are told to 'teach to the middle' anyway so its completely taught around the middle ability and we extend or support/scaffold through targeted questions, task, and toolkits offered to for support for the highers and lowers.

This scenario is the hardest to teach in because you can't offer enough support to the lowest attaining children who often, by dint of their needs, don't actually use the support tools we provide - eg word mats, concrete resources - without adult assistance. Either because they forget they are there, forget how to use them correctly, forget when to use them or just can't be bothered with the effort required because its still difficult for them they just have extra 'things' on their table.

By the same token, we can't appropriately extend the highest attaining children because we can't get the focused time required to challenge their understanding and thinking because our attention is diverted because one child (usually a middle) hasn't quite got it or a lower is making guns put of cubes because it's more fun than using them to work out arrays. And they can't quite remember what an array is in the first place.

Setting them means that the middles, far from being overlooked, are actually able to learn because the pace is better suited to them.

It also means you can set the middles who have got it off on their task independently and invite those who still aren't sure to stay with you for a bit longer.

The middles are more likely to be 'plodding' when classes aren't set.

The range of ability across the board is actually quite small when you've removed the highest and lowest from the situation.

I don't know why some people assume we're utterly incompetent.

That is true.

However, I teach top maths set and bottom literacy in my school.

Behaviour is equally good, but can equally challenging, in both. It just looks different.

I'm not sure I agree about keeping the top set separate and then mixed ability in subsequent sets. But I suppose there is no perfect way to do it, and I don't think it's elitist.

My DS is in y8 at a state secondary and the system there is brutal and full on. 7 sets for each subject, top 30 go into the top set, 20-60 into the next etc. They base the sets on the outcomes of exams they take twice a year - my DS is ranked in every subject he does (out of about 160 in the yr) and given an overall rank. The boys' overall rank also determines what form they go into.

And they publish the rankings on school notice boards.

It is brutal. But works for my son. Also, it works for me - as I know exactly where he is in his cohort for every subject, be it number 1 for History or number 13 for Science. There is no hiding - if there is a problem then he and I will both be aware of it.

Kids do move all the time, as it depends entirely on exam results.

Very unfair to say the “bright quiet kids are left to it at state” where is your evidence for this please? 🙄 My bright quiet hardworking Dd obtained a string of nines at her state school. She did better at her weakest subjects than we could have ever hoped for her science grades went from 4s in year 10 mocks to 8s in the real exams.

Well yes I would if it was the same set up. DD plays in Div 5 at football, her best friend plays in Div 1. If the league suddenly said, Div 1 will remain but we’re mixing up Div 2-5 then yeah, I’d be upset, she’s playing at her right ability in Div, I wouldn’t suddenly wish for her to be playing again Div 2 every week

But she wouldn't be playing against Div 2 every week, her mixed team would be playing another mixed team so it would still be fair. It's the same in this situation, there will be mixed abilities in her class.

If there was a best and proven way all schools should and would adopt this. There isn't, it will vary by cohort and also needs to be as fair as possible to students and teachers.

Are you saying that this is per subject or have they decided each new set contains the same children for every subject? I hope not! I do get having a top set for maths, some children (including high functioning) find maths easy and can work at a fast pace, some maths teachers will only teach these sets (wouldn't want that kind of teacher). That said it's very difficult to move up to this set if you don't start in it.

I think mixing kids from set 2 and below is very unfair. This is why many people (like me) chose private schools. My DC are bright but not all subjects top set, the quiet, hard working types that would just get left to it at state secondary and parents have to watch whilst the bright kids get all the extension etc, struggling kids get lots of support (RIGHTLY SO) whilst they have to pay for tutoring.

Sounds like it's all about results. Are you in a grammar area OP?

At dds school the top sets are larger as the pupils need less one on one time and the lower the set the smaller it is.

Trust the teachers both ours have always felt their setting was about right as do their friends and they moved them around considerably. Think it’s just parents struggling to accept that their child may not be top set for everything.

Speak to any teacher and they will tell you that the higher attaining children can be just as disruptive as the lower attaining ones Can be, but much less frequently in my experience. Bottom sets can be dire for those who genuinely need a lot of help but are keen to learn.