A question for Toby Young and Thomas Packer at the West London Free School

The beauty of choice: if you don't like what the Headmaster or Deputy says then don't go there!

Littentree Snobbery seems to be a taboo subject. Why? It is a facet of human nature. Not everyone is that way inclined but many are. I suppose snobbery values style over substance. Difficult thing to pin down because no one seems to see themselves as a snob. What about Penny Keith in the Good Life?

Proposition- 'great for middle and bottom, leaves the top coasting...'

That entirely depends on what constitutes 'the top'. At my DSs' school, 'the top' includes DCs with A level maths- at Y6; and a DS who has just gone to uni in Y10 to do economics, the other GCSEs necessary to enter uni having been taught to the required level by this otherwise non-setting school... BUT the majority of the top set contains DC who happen to be very good but not necessarily genius at Maths (which, along with MFL in Y8 is all they set for). The idea that 'the set above' will always provide the ceiling for the set below but, for the top set, somehow there is no end to their ability purely because there is not a named, populated set above, is flawed.

To come back to the OP, I know several new schools that didn't set at first, and then did after a few years.

I think it is because of timetabling - until you have a full or nearly full complement of staff, you won't have enough teachers in each subject to timetable across the year (or half year in big schools). So the choice is streaming or mixed ability teaching, as I understand it. I have heard people involved in running new schools say that so much management time and effort is put into the first cohort or two, getting everything absolutely right, that this works out OK.

I would be surprised if WLFS was not setting in four years. It would be very unusual in inner London I think.

And I understand the cynicism about admissions, but think the school will also be subjected to an extraordinary level of scrutiny given the personalities and politics involved, which may balance things up a little.

See, that's what I experienced, and have consequently always thought. Great for the middle and botto m, but leaves the top coasting.

I think the research shows that setting benefits high achievers and mixed ability benefits the middle and lower end.

As a maths teacher I find mixed ability teaching exceptionally difficult for the term before we set Y7 (obviously it would be easier if it was my normal way of working). In English you can set the whole class the same task and differentiate by outcome, but in maths setting a task that a wide range of abilities can access and gain from is very difficult. Mixed ability maths teaching usually ends up as one frazzled teacher actually teaching different 'sets' with children grouped accordingly, but within one classroom - or the old way of SMP booklets where children basically teach themselves at their own pace by working through each booklet individually.

I have yet to see mixed ability maths teaching done well. I know people like Jo Boaler (who wrote the telegraph article) are in favour, but in terms of how-to, it's poorly resourced and usually (IME) poorly implemented.

"I understand that for lower achieving children it may be helpful to be in a mixed set, but I have never understood why it would benefit the high achievers."

Maybe not being in a bubble of high achievers is good for them in other ways?

I think the point is that it actively benefits the lower achievers, and does not disbenefit the high achievers, so is a good thing overall?

I understand that for lower achieving children it may be helpful to be in a mixed set, but I have never understood why it would benefit the high achievers. I would be really grateful if someone with teaching experience could explain that to me.

There was another poster on "Oxbridge Material" who I thought encapsulated that tension between feeling upset that her son wasn't being given the same chance as others to achieve his goals because he had been earmarked as bottom third ability at a very academic school, at the same time she was subscribing to an entirely selective and (expensively procurred) view of education, and it was tearing her in pieces.

However, Litten I do take your point, that schools which are generally selective whether by catchment, or faith, are likely to be less in need of setting. It is a fair one.

I just felt there was another angle to setting in general, and I disliked your tone, and that of some of the posters on here, which is typical knee jerk reaction that of course setting is good, because our children are going to be in the top sets. I do see that you have mentioned your son is not in top sets, so I am been a bit harsh. Apologies, and you have made valid points.

Like you and everyone I agonise over selection and choices, hate when I am in some way passed over, enjoy being told my children are better faster stronger. It is a the Selfish Gene really. We all want to help others, but we all want to be best.

Am I...not I am...

the art group was extension for G &T. The disruption occurred in class lessons at beginning of Yr 7. He is now in Yr 8.

I think this thread is snobbish because a) it started with someone worrying that their child wasn't going to be stretched at the Free School, when any fule no that everything about the Free School screams work them till they drop (5pm extended day, loads of homework, no excuses etc) So that tells me the OP is ultra pushy. I think it is snobby to say my child is so clever and this school isn't going to be good enough for him. I've learnt that the hard way, realising that my child wasn't as clever or academic as many of his classmates. That doesn't mean that the school isn't just as much for people like him as for SATS level 6-rs. He makes his contribution to the school in all sorts of other ways (sings in Chamber choir at assorted venues for example) Any school which is only set up for one sort of academic success is not going to be a very good school anyway. Okay, so I am biased wanting my child to do as well academically as he is capable of, when he is not in the Top Sets, and not wishing schools to be designed to only benefit those in the TOP SETS.
b) I think it is snobbish to talk of MC parents and OIKS. Is that allowed? If you want to be pc about faith schools and dismiss them as mere social engineering, not in fact a question of faith in evidence (which in most cases they are...wanting your child to have an education which is underpinned by frequent reference to a Christian framework/worship), I am not allowed to be equally pc or sniffy about your use of word Oiks?

See, I'm not in favour of setting across the board; my DSs school doesn't set in anything except Maths (4 weeks into Y7) and MFL, in Y8. Yet they are the top academically performing comp in the county (Hants).

How do they do this? Well, to an extent they do 'set' via exam curriculum (see my remarks that only the more able do Eng Lit but this does constitute the majority of the DC)- BUT the real reason is that the school is very MC. Selection by house price. In this way they don't 'suffer' from having 'lower groups' populated with the less able and the disruptive.

TBF, it's not really fair to chuck in the art group and disruption thing if it's an extra-curricular activity, is it?

You still haven't told us why you think this thread is 'snobbish'!

Oh yes, the G&T in Art have an afterschool club. Half the class also went to Tate Modern as a reward trip? The other half were less interested, and didn't get chosen, but at least they all had the chance to explore the curriculum surrounded by ideas and challenges in the first place.

We are digressing from the subject of Maths setting!

litten They paid attention to his "needs", they encouraged him. The disruption in art lessons and all other lessons ceased. Why would setting have solved the problem?

Anyway, I still don't know any schools where art is setted at Yr 7, so what exactly is your point?

I suppose I am saying that if a Faith school didn't commit itself to maximising the chance of every pupil it shouldn't pretend to have Christian values [or whatever faith it represented]. Ds1 once got into trouble over something and Dh asked about nurture group etc to resolve some social issues. Teacher replied that they didn't have many resources for that, and I think DH just gave him a withering look as if to say (DH is Lutheran) You call yourself a Christian school? The school did give help after that. They have been goodpastoral (which incidentally is a Christian concept) It was a minor hiccup [I hope]

The argument is not that non-demominational schools don't maximize the chances, just that if a Faith school should fail on that one, they are going against the principles on which they were founded.

However, enough of faith issues; after all WLFS is not one; I am more interested in what makes a better learning environment in a general sense. Is it setting or partial setting?

"My son was disruptive in Art lessons because he is bad at Art. No doubt those children who are good at art would prefer to be with the other G & T artists. Yet no-one has suggested a lower set for that. He is learning from those who are good at art how to raise his game. Why on earth would his art improve he was put with all the other no-hopers?"

Um- the first seven words of that statement concern me. He doesn't 'get it' so thinks it's OK to disrupt the education of others?

HOW good is this 'RC' school?! How do the 'G&T' in Art DC have their chances 'maximised' if they have a disruptive DC in their midst?

Yep....I am often on the opposing side from seeker....but this time we are in total agreement. This school will NOT be allowed to fail and won't struggle with resources like other schools.

You think that faith schools are more committed to maximising the chances of every pupil? Why?

I'm not attacking, just really really intrigued.

I suppose I mentioned the RC ness of the school in passing, because I have a vague feeling that these schools would I hope be committed to maximising the chances of every pupil, rather than locking them into sets right from the start. Although I know other RC schools in area where they set in every subject; they get better results. Whether that is a more "Christian" way of organising things I don't know. Certainly some parents veer away from those schools on the basis that they are "restrictive".

If you like I am using the same argument that people use against 11+ selection. That Yr 7 is too early to "decide" that one "set" of pupils is destined to be challenged and inspired, and another group just make do. Mixing up abilities at least in Yr 7 when children are just starting to find out what they are capable of, is surely the best policy, at least in some subjects.

My son was disruptive in Art lessons because he is bad at Art. No doubt those children who are good at art would prefer to be with the other G & T artists. Yet no-one has suggested a lower set for that. He is learning from those who are good at art how to raise his game. Why on earth would his art improve he was put with all the other no-hopers?

I am a novice in educational theory, no doubt some teachers who actually know their stuff will be along to enlighten us I would be genuinely interested to hear what secondary school teachers think.

seeker we fall out from time to time but on this occasion I shall grace you with complete agreement!

As I said earlier, (my remarks re parents prepare to bash down school doors with battering rams to get their DC in), what the WLFS (and my DCs' school) benefits from is on side, committed parents.

swanthing- what do you mean by 'snobbish'? Do you mean my observation that sadly, in more deprived areas, you're more likely to find not just lower innate ability in the lower sets (which you'd find in a 'good' MC comp, too), you're also going to find poorly socialised, badly behaved DC? Who, if they'd come from 'better' backgrounds, might be in higher sets? But, as it is, merely trash the learning of the well-behaved but less able?

As for English- well, my DCs' school doesn't 'set' BUT it only allows DC who are likely to pass to take Eng Lit GCSE so in that way, they could be said to be 'setting'.

This remark:"But if he was in the third set, and he may yet drop down to it, I would feel that his chances of expanding his ideas would be more limited" demonstrates that you do not understand setting. If you trust the school- and your remarks indicate you do- and your DC is placed in a less academic set, this is because he has been assessed as not being able to access the speed and/or complexity of the work of the 'higher' set. They have placed him in a set appropriate to his ability- which of course might be the ability of a DC who has already reached the limits of their own intellect.

And finally, your DC is at an selective school. You yourself have told us it is a RC school (why?). It is endlessly shown that similar religious schools do better than secular ones. The speculation as to why is, imo, wrongly directed. To me, it's obvious that DC in religious affiliated schools do better because, pun intended, they're all 'singing from the same hymn sheet'. There is social cohesion. There will be non religious parents who have basically lied through their teeth, and been to Mass every week for years, and done the altar flowers for months- to get their DC into that school. They're committed. Their DC will do well.

I think you are asking the wrong questions. You should be asking: a) what level of progress is every child expected to make in Year 7 and how many are making that level of progress. b) what extra help is given to children who don't make that progress.

Good progress should be made for low, medium and high achievers albeit not at the same level. I would have thought if a child is level 6 upon entry to a good school you should expect it to be level seven at end of the year. This will tell you if setting is even needed. And of course only the head/teachers can give you this information.

You can call me an old cynic again because I also think that there is no way this school will be allowed to be anything but a success. So there will mysteriously be mo problem with resources, with behaviour, with staff turnover, with premises......

Old cynic....

"If the Free School doesn't band in the first year, I am beginning to think, good on it, because it is having more faith in the innate abilities and teamwork of the classes."

I would love to think this too. But sadly, i suspect that they aren't banding because they expect to have a uniformly high achieving intake with committed parents. Call me an old cynic.....