Mixed ability teaching vs sets

I think its with these kids - who don't always concentrate well - they end up working at a lower attainment than their potential. The right kind of homework and parent engagement could make a difference. I don't think some schools leverage parents the way the should. Speaking from experience, you learn far too late that there is an issue or you get the wrong information about the issue.

normally based on attainment, children who learn more slowly are put in slower moving sets, and yes, children who fidget and don't concentrate willl learn more slowly.

having volunteered in a bottom set class, I think it is really unfair to the students. These kids have a hodge podge of issues. Some really bright kids in this set who are simply - fidgety, easily distracted who are scoring higher that kids in sets way above. These kids are not reaching their full potential because concepts are presented more slowly and they don't get exposed to the more challenging topics.

It seems a little dodgy how decisions around which students make it into which set are chosen.

Hi redsky:

my solution has been to encourage DD to do that little bit more. It hasn't always been easy and at times can be a battle - but I think we've got to a place where she gets why it's important to try hard/ put the effort in.

At first, because she basically had very little homework in primary, she needed help working out how to prioritise homework assignments with various deadlines.

Once we got over that hurdle - it was really working on getting her not to launch straight in on things - but to try and plan a bit - especially for things like writing tasks/ projects/ presentations.

A few months on now - DH or I frequently are shown finished work and can then pass comment. We're working on trying to get her to stop doing the bare minimum and to really do that bit more - find out more information/ research something further/ look at more than wikipedia/ etc... and really working on getting her to structure her writing (beginning/ middle/ end - arguments supported with examples) and put thought into layout/ design/ presentation.

We're very lucky in that the school have been very supportive of our approach with DD1 and also agree that she shouldn't sit on her laurels and look for the easy out. I think at first DD1 thought we were being unfair - and frequently would say 'nobody is doing this much, etc...' in a feeble attempt to get out of doing more - but when it came down to it there were other pupils who'd put in extra time/ research on projects/ essays and it wasn't just her. This has actuallly helped as the competor in her likes to be doing as well as the more able pupils, many of whom are friends.

She's also starting to realise that the extra work is transmogifying into better results and getting noticed for all the right reasons. In fact, I'd say that's why she's pretty well doing this on her own now and DH and I have really just become sounding boards or the people asked to type in the password so she can get on the computer/ tablet.

I would actually campaign for PE setting. My games and PE lessons were horrendous. I was bullied and humiliated by the other girls and the teacher because I was hopeless. And I mean truly hopeless. Things aren't so bad today, but ds has sadly inherited my lack of sportiness and says that games lessons were spent sitting around doing nothing whilst the able pupils played football/hockey/did athletics and if he and the other lumps were made to join in the sporty ones groaned and tried to ignore them.

It's more than just a matter of hurt feelings - it means that swatches of kids don't get any exercise and fail to pursue a sport or activity because they aren't really good at it. Can you imagine doing the same with Maths? "Oh, Harry, you can't join in because you're no good at algebra. Sit on the side and watch."

I can imagine it would be deeply annoying to have to play football or tennis with someone of lesser - or even no - ability, so why does it happen?

I agree Essexmum69. They do the same at DD's school. It meant that DD, with her joint problems, could actually enjoy PE instead of being overlooked and pushed out of the way all the time.

As a teacher, I think ALL subjects should be set, according to ability.

Ds school set for PE games. Excellent idea. The top set contained the rugby team and those with the ambition to be in it. The middle set contained those who could play an OK game of tag rugby but didnt want to go further and the bottom set contained those that couldn't or wouldnt run or catch! DS spent a happy 5 years in the middle set with no embarassment or desire to be promoted.

It's nigh on impossible to teach a class where some kids are capable of solving quadratic equations yet others are unable to count on in 2s. Yet that is a real example of the spread of ability in most schools.

Teaching to the needs of the able in Maths alongside those who struggle in Maths is like teaching history and geography in the same lesson!

That sounds like a great idea, bruffin

DC school have a pathway thingy and they get to choose the sports they want to do. Both dc took golf!

I'd agree that PE should be set, definitely. There's such a big difference between the keen competitive skilled dc, and those who really need encouragement to enjoy exercise and understand the benefits.

I just remember the relief at school once we got to fourth year and all the keen types took O level PE, the rest of us did dance, aerobics, badminton, volleyball etc with no competitive element. (Obviously, there is a competitive side to the latter two, but it was about exercise, not your team winning.)

"If you put children who are weak writers in bottom sets, where does that leave the bright, articulate readers like my Ds who is shit at writing?"

Learning to write is a harder task (by far) than learning to read. It is more appropriate to set by writing skills (or lack thereof) than by reading skills.

HappyCamper I think mixed ability is better for DT, art, music, PE etc

I'm not sure I agree.

DD's school sets for PE which is great. Though they let there be some choice as to what set you go to. 2 sets the Good, competitive or the less good less competitive. That way the good ones don't get exasperated by others dropping the ball, and the less good don't get humiliated by dropping the ball (or whatever). DD actually quite enjoys PE lessons because nobody minds that she's rubbish (bottom 0.5% ball skills).

School doesn't set for DT, but I wouldn't have minded if they did. They kept letting her aim for something too complicated so she ended up not succeeding.

On the other subjects. I think people they should be set by the speed / depth of lesson they can keep up with. So even if someone struggles to write essays, if they otherwise have a great understanding of English lit, then let them be in the top set for it.

portico
TIMMS looks interesting - but the fact that it does not test children in India, China, most of South America, most of South East Asia, mainland Europe, central America or Canada
kinda shows me how pointless ALL the international comparison testing systems are.

DH was recently at a school with almost all overseas students.
Their knowledge was great.
Their ability to apply that knowledge in unfamiliar scenarios was zilch - hence why they had come to be immersed in the English attitude to learning for a couple of years.

BUT
Back to the OP
I believe in setting.
I believe in comprehensive schooling with support for detailed and flexible setting
in all subjects
in all secondary year groups

DD1 is in Year 7 and her school doesn't set at all in Year 7. From Year 8 sets start for things like MFL/ Science - but officially no setting for English/ History/ RE/ Geography/ PE/ Maths/ D&T etc... in KS3.

There's lots of verbage about how this ensures that everyone starts 'fresh' and that there are no preconceptions about who is able or not. (Which I do rather feel is a good thing).

The down side is that not all teachers provide work that lends itself to differentiation - i.e. an English assignment - poem or essay - which can be accessed by all ability levels providing each with their own challenges.

Maths is a good example - it's mixed ability and tends to be the same worksheet for the whole class and DD1 (who adores Maths) usually finishes the sheet in class. So she's desperate for more maths work - whilst struggling pupils have to go home and do 'tons of maths homework', which they frequently find really hard.

Personally I'd prefer something a bit more challenging for DD1 - but the school have encourage NRICH maths puzzles and we do our daily 5 a day on Corbett Maths. She also plays a lot of maths games on-line & on my maths.

I don't think mixed ability is necessarily better than set ability - I think as ever it's entirely what the teacher does with that set up. A lower set that has the aim to get those kids back up to speed is a good thing. A mixed ability group that helps make less confident pupils more confident by not labeling them good/ bad/ otherwise and encouraging everyone to have a go is also beneficial.

As ever I fear there is no easy solution or only one way to teach. Either method can exclude/ put off/ stall pupils. I think no matter what you do as a teacher - meeting the needs of each individual in the whole group is really tricky.

Portico
As a pedant, I looked up the methodology when the PISA results came out and was deeply unimpressed.
The methodology was radically different than the previous time so its not even time comparable.

In Shanghai, kids can only go to secondary school if their parents have a residence card.
ie are among the richer parts of the city population with time and money to tutor.

The nearest UK equivalent is to take the results of all the private and selective schools in London and pretend that the education system in the whole UK performs like that.

Actually TalkinPeace. Sorry for being cheeky. I have actually said earlier in this thread that the TIMMS test are a good indicator of UK school children. Do you agree.

I teach secondary and am in favour of setting for core academic subjects i.e. maths, science, English, MFL and humanities. I think mixed ability is better for DT, art, music, PE etc. I don't think it is best for anyone to have students working at level 2 and level 8 in the same class.

I'm happy that my current school has a set up like this and I think in the main it does work. There is also plenty of movement between the sets as children blossom at different ages. We have 5 sets in each year group. Upper sets can have 30-32, middle around 22-25 and the lowest set can be 8-12, so it really is tailored to them personally.

TalkinPeace. I do not believe. You and I actually agree on something. The gods are with me today. Feeling lucky. Off to get my lottery ticket for tonight's draw.

A lot of learning is done through discussion and group work in English.

If you put children who are weak writers in bottom sets, where does that leave the bright, articulate readers like my Ds who is shit at writing?

minifingers

In dcs school they would be top sets.

Sets should be formed on the basis of its pupils ability, attainment and attitude IMVHO. They should also be flexible
Yes, which is what dc's school do.

Reallytired DS problems are mainly memory and organisation which affects his writing. A small nurturing group would not be of that much benefit. He would not have peers to bounce off of.
He has the vocabulary, the ability to express himself, just will spell the same word 5 different ways on the same page. He also will copy the wrong number across from one page to another in maths or have his calculator on the wrong setting for maths. He failed a paper because of that but everything he did was right. He now takes two calculators into exams labelled with the correct settings.