Secondary school with no setting and almost no homework

I could have written the first post based on my daughter's experiences in her first half term of y7. Virtually no homework, few books brought home with any meaningful teacher comments, and mixed ability classes, apart from maths. Guess what her favourite subject is? I am also a former teacher and have taught a key subject both mixed and setted, and I am a huge fan of sets. Indeed, a 'set' of students is still a mixed ability group essentially, but it does narrow the ability gap somewhat which makes it easier to plan to challenge all students and to use teaching methods suitable to the class. I agree with the previous poster who argued that some less able students may benefit from shorter, quick paced activities in order to engage students who might otherwise become disengaged. This method is not the best method for more high attaining students who can cope with more extended tasks and technical language. My daughter is very bright, but lazy and she is not being stretched at all in most classes.

In contrast, my younger son is very weak. I hope that he is setted too when he starts secondary school, especially since support staff are being cut left, right and centre. He should be in a small bottom set with staff who know him well. If he is in a group of 30 like my daughter, he will struggle a lot. Coasting like my daughter will be the least of his problems. My dread is that he will be put in a set up from the bottom. Bitter experience tells me that this is a mix of the weak and the disengaged. Maybe wrong to say it, but often so true.

To change the subject slightly, I have worked in a number of high schools in different roles, and I think one of the massive problems that high schools have is that they do not give enough consideration to Transition. Most have systems in place to ensure students settle in happily from a pastoral point of view, but many many teachers have little idea how yr6 operates. Year 7 students are accustomed to responsibilities at primary school, and many have worked like Trojans to prepare for their SATS but often students are babied. Secondary teachers are dealing with so many changes to the high school curriculum, that not enough know how demanding y6 is academically. My daughter has told me that she does not have to work as hard in y7 as she did last year, and that her classmates get away with a lot more bad behaviour too. But that's a whole different kettle of fish. I think y7 is such an important year, but schools really miss a trick when they let the momentum built up the final years a primary slide. I have seen it happen time and again. Not enough subject specialists to staff the timetable - give yr 7 the non specialist etc.

there appears to be widespread scepticism about 'mixed ability' teaching.

It would be interesting to have proper, up-to-date figures about how extensive mixed-ability teaching actually is. The only thing I've ever been able to find on this subject is 7 years out of date, but it certainly indicates that mixed ability teaching was pretty common then:

Of about 18,400 classroom observations conducted by Ofsted inspectors in secondary schools last year (2008/09), roughly only four in ten represented set lessons:... at secondary, this data suggests that around 53%, 70% and 60% of lessons are set for English, mathematics and science respectively

www.gov.uk/government/publications/streamlining-within-english-comprehensive-schools/streamlining-within-english-comprehensive-schools

I linked above to Thornden - it is well known for not setting

They set for maths from year 7. They also set for other subjects from year 9 or 10, I think. Imo top achievers don't do as well as one might expect (from demographics, lots of academics/IT workers/doctors/lawyers parents with higher degrees) but this is partly concealed by the fact that A/A star are not split in tables. Interesting to see what happens when the new 9-1 grading comes in. Progress 8 is apparently "only" 0.4.

I agree, with maths and MFL I think the students themselves are happier if they are in sets that are tailored to their needs. I am amazed the school doesn't have to set at some point, partly because GCSEs differentiate in grades and tiers and also because the maths content will be harder and broader. Moreover, Ofsted would require evidence that they are differentiating work at the high and low ends of ability. I don't know of any school in my area that doesn't set for a range of subjects in year 7 so there appears to be widespread scepticism about 'mixed ability' teaching.

I do not believe that many subjects -maths, mfl for example can be taught as effectively in mixed ability classes .
I do however believe that research and statistics can be manipulated to give whatever answer you want.

in Humanities subjects, setting is less useful because forming a discursive argument can be assisted by having to think it through with those who think in a more concrete fashion

I've seen this argument before, but to me it sounds more like a rationalisation than something that has actual solid evidence behind it. Certainly it hasn't been my daughter's experience. What more able children need in humanities is, on the contrary, plenty of exposure to, and a chance to practise, the more sophisticated academic language of that particular discipline, so they can express themselves fluently and coherently in it. They also benefit from an environment where they can argue and discuss at this more sophisticated level, and can realise that there are other people their age who like academic work and don't label it as "not cool".

Also, the pressure from higher up to do "fun" and "active" lessons, in order to keep the less able "engaged" in mixed ability lessons, leads to serious dumbing down, certainly in our local school. The result is a huge amount of time wasted for the more able.

And finally, languages are humanities, and with them the dumbing down at GCSE level is staggering, producing a huge gap between it and A level. At least in set lessons children might get a chance to be pushed beyond the startlingly low level required, even for an A*, at GCSE, to give them a good basis for studying the language at A level.

noble
you have indeed identified the achilles heel in any covertly selective school - resting on laurels.
the school that people "avoid" is Toynbee - which actually turn out nicer kids

tbh the C'Ford bubble is a surreal thing in many ways ;-)

Talkin it may not be a selective school, but its intake is very skewed towards the higher end, there are barely any lower attainers which means that setting isn't as vital as a school with a much more solid spread of ability.

And if you look at achievement by prior attainment, the lower attainers do really badly. It looks, in fact, as if Thornden doesn't really cater for them at all, probably because there are so few of them and they don't set, so they just get left to struggle.

If I had a low ability child I definitely would think twice before sending them there, and they're the type of child that mixed ability teaching is supposed to help!

The "setting" / "no setting" argument cannot be generalised
either between schools
or between subjects

from the reading I've done for DHs work
in STEM subjects, setting is beneficial because the ability to grasp concepts and run with them varies significantly
in Humanities subjects, setting is less useful because forming a discursive argument can be assisted by having to think it through with those who think in a more concrete fashion

PE will generally be in sets - so that county athletes are not held back by bored geeks
ditto any sort of "performance" subject

I linked above to Thornden - it is well known for not setting
it is well known for stratospheric results
it is also a purely geographic comp - no selection in any method other than distance / admission code

I was a high flyer generally at school went on to get an Oxbridge degree yadda yadda, but not great at numbers.
I was completely happy to be in the bottom set for maths, I didn't want to work with people who were miles ahead of me and to be taught at my own level. It didn't affect my self esteem or confidence in the slightest. Obviously, I was good at some other things but still. The argument that the same kids will end up in the bottom set with disruptive kids is a compete non-sequitur, schools need to sort out their discipline if this is the case.

OP, you have my sympathies, not sure what to suggest though

Zebra I absolutely agree with you that "doing well" shouldn't just mean doing well on exams. It's an artificial ceiling to achievement, that at GCSE level at least is relatively low for able children. I'm just quoting to you what people with those beliefs will (and frequently do) say. As I mentioned above, our local secondary doesn't set except for maths, and I feel my younger daughter has been disadvantaged by this. I'm afraid I don't have any advice for you, though.

I

Also, most people who take this view won't agree that it's really bad for the children at the top of the class. They will probably say that such children will always do well, wherever they are.

I just don't get it.

It's almost certainly because they don't realise how poor the quality of the evidence supporting mixed ability teaching is, and believe they are helping lower attainers by not setting. It's a political/philosophical thing.

Its sounds like my secondary school - which was awful. We were eventually set for maths in GCSE year, but that was it.

My overriding memory of it was just being very, very bored most of the time. I did though manage to get decent grades through doing workbooks and I'm sure there must be some good online programmes now.

Are you planning to move again?

trifle no it doesn't. Read the link a PP gave to oldandrew' blog about the quality of evidence about this. Google criticisms of Jo Boaler - her research should be taken with a heavy pinch of salt.

I went to a talk by Dylan Wiliam once who said 'if the evidence tells you something you know isn't true, then that means you need to look again at the evidence' (e.g. Class size doesn't matter).

I know as a maths teacher that I can't effectively teach a wide range of abilities in my class. We do it until Y7 are setted so I have some experience. What inevitably happens is that some groups are left to fend for themselves while you give different level input to different groups. The weakest struggle, the top are bored.

Now it might be that there are fantastic teaching methods whereby this doesn't happen but I've never seen it done well and I'm not good at it. Which means, for me (and many other teachers with similar training/experience), classes will not do as well taught by me in mixed ability as they will if they are setted.

On top of that, the evidence is poor quality.

Sorry guys have reported my own post

I'm against mixed ability too, but the preponderance of the evidence tells me I am wrong

Well, we don't have grammar schools in Scotland for a start....

My child is in S2 in a high performing state secondary (comprehensive) in Scotland. From January in S1 they were set for Maths, from the start of S2 they were put in sets for Science, and after Christmas this year, they will be set for English too. At the end of S2 they will start picking their subjects to take forward for exams and aim to group children of similar ability together, depending on demand for the subject.

Setting is VERY common in Scottish schools from what i've seen but it will depend on the size of the school - if the year group is very small they might just not be able to achieve it. Although even with fewer than 100 children in the year I'd still expect there to be three groups for core subjects like English/Maths.

I would be exploring all of this with your child's year head or the Headteacher.

I do think though mixed ability sets in a comp is absolute pants!
.Why should the bright ones be used to pull up the results of teh weak ones.
OP if you really have no other educational options, then I would fight to get this changed .Stand for governor, connect with other parents who feel the same way and lobby the HT, the LEA, the governing body etc.

After half a term they have not yet done any maths that she didn't do at primary.
My Y7 is at a grammar school and they are still recapping primary maths in unsetted classes.I guess they have to ascertain their grasp of the basics before they move on.

Here's a link to a discussion about the research on mixed ability teaching:

Like a lot of trainee teachers, I was told on my PGCE course that the empirical evidence strongly supported mixed ability. It was a bit of a shock to look at this evidence and see how poor much of it is....

teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/2015/11/29/why-i-am-against-mixed-ability-part-2/

OP it is not unusual I think to spend the first bit of secondary going over what might have been done already by some/most in primary. Furthermore, our experience was very much that some subjects in maths particularly, but also english were covered at a very different point in the school life. Eg, DD3 started fractions mid primary in England, but DD1 (gifted at maths, so not for lack of ability) didn't do any fractions till the end of S1. It is just different, and for us was a huge adjustment. You will also find it challenging to talk to staff about it, because most of them just won't grasp that it can be done in any other way. We've moved in both directions, and found teachers in both countries completely unable or unwilling to see that the DC could be taught in any way other than the way that it was done by them. The effect that SATs, league tables and the like has had in England is starkly revealed I think when you find yourself switching between systems that most people do not see as being any different.