Middle sets are set for failure

Surely it depends on the school. Our school has a steady 5 x A - C in the mid 80's with something like 70% of those B and above so clearly the middle sets are working at a high level and most of those will get a combinations of A's, A's and B's with the odd C so more than enough for A levels and to get offers from good uni's. My eldest is middle set for science and he's predicted an A. It's not keeping me awake at night

My dcs are middle set or probably higher in a lower achieving area - I have always talk to them about hard work being the essence of success- they have consistently out performed their targets every year - summer born and slow to mature they needed time and belief they could do it - and they do!
Dh middle of the road in the early years but a very hard worker in school, university and work - he went far. I'm the classic 2:1 degree but did bugger all with it SAHM - regrets? I have a few.......

My middle set grades ranged from 1-8 this year. I get a lot of middle sets. Kids in there tebd to be hard-working but not quite there in yr 9; bright but lazy or massive underachieving. You can get great things out of middle sets - but it depends on.the child.

I think it sounds like something the friend's parents said to try and encourage them to work hard and stay in the top set - motivating students this way is quite common, I think.
As for middle sets not achieving that will only be true if you allow it to be, hard work is an excellent life skill, being clever will not always carry you through.

And there had never been any question that she won't do a levels and go to uni. Honestly mumsnet is weird about grades and academic achievements.

Dd2 is in the middle sets and predicted a mixture of As and Bs including a 7 in maths. I'm delighted!!

Middle sets tend to do well just less

No. Of course not everyone goes to university! What makes anyone think that? Yes, some universities are not able to be choosy over students but that doesn't mean everyone goes. We are not at anywhere near 50%.

Naturally bright children are very capable of working hard and achieving highly. They up their game when they need to. Often middle achievers will have to work consistently but they can go to university and many do.

I think middle set children with great motivation for hard work do well, imo. If you set your heart to it, there are so many easily accessible resources these days to help you. On the other hand, naturally bright kids may struggle for first time to work hard to achieve, maybe not in secondary, but later on.

Am I missing something here but doesn't pretty much everyone go to university of some kind nowadays, not just those in the top set as it was in my day? When I applied to university, you needed a solid clutch of As or Bs or Cs to get in but now it seems the entry requirements for many of the new universities are a lot lot lower. He may not get into a popular course and a Russel group uni but he will surely get a place somewhere if he does reasonably well.

In Bucks there are 30-40% high achievers in some areas who do not get to the grammar schools. Very many of these would be in a top set in a comprehensive school. They do very well in Bucks Secondary moderns as you say MMA, but many are not middle set children.

However, why is your DS so bothered with what his friends think, OP? What do they know? Nothing. So get him to talk to someone sensible, who he trusts, for a chat about what is possible. He will be fine if he works steadily and enjoys school.

Dumbledore I have found a kindred spirit at least

OP's post illustrates how poisonous and mindset creating setting can be.

My DS's school set them the minute they entered the school in such an inflexible way that they ended up in the same set for everything (except maths who got their own sets...) so , although he was a talented linguist he was in set 2 to match his English abilty. Bizarrely, this also dictated his IT ste. he can barely switch a computer on...

At the end of a year in his set 2, the French department predicted hima GCSE grade D. Two years later he has an A and an A* in Spanish! So, it's just as well we paid that no heed .

Conversely, the rot set in in that year in Geography, which he had previously loved. he went backwards . the class had 32 students, over 20 of whom were boys. There was little aspiration and behaviour management was challenging for the teachers. he went form being well behaved and settled to unhappy and then to quite naughty.

He has just got a D in GCSE Geography . Hmmm...

Some schools will do a better job of setting than others, that said. But I still hate it.

As for your DS , keep an eye on things,especially a slide in motivation or attitude. We let it slide too much in hindsight. DS2 is going to the same school soon and we will be watching like hawks!

A bunch of my sixth formers didn't go to uni this year, they got apprenticeships instead. They were top set! Uni is losing its appeal at 9k per year when there are other, excellent options where you get paid to train.

Through volunteering I know some kids who did not get to Grammar school. As this is Bucks, that would put them likely in middle sets in non selective schools. This group of 5, have, without exception gone on to RG unis to study academic subjects. I expect they will also have bright futures in the job market. So please tell your DS that his friends are talking rubbish :-D

Also, it suits children who compare themselves less favourably to others to be top of a lower set and boost their confidence, rather than struggle in the top set.

it is the quality of the teacher for a particular set and the determination of the pupil that makes the difference. Your DS may better off with some of his teachers than the higher sets.

Indeed it is. Some schools put their weaker teachers to teach the top sets on the assumption the kids will teach themselves to make up for the teacher weakness. At my son's school, it is noticeable that the stronger teachers tend to teach the lower sets.

it is the quality of the teacher for a particular set and the determination of the pupil that makes the difference. Your DS may better off with some of his teachers than the higher sets. If he has a poor teacher for a subject plus loss of confidence then perhaps some outside help.
Setting at this age can be rather arbitrary and more based on how quickly DCs can work than potential sometimes.

Yep. Specially designed so that schools like ds's, with a very high % of middle/low ability kids will find it much harder to score well on Progress 8 than a school with a high ability intake........

The difference between a C and a D this year was an extra 1 point for progress 8 but grades B-A* were all worth an extra 1.5 points. Tops sets were definitely a priority in any school with sense this year.

"is usually higher than that (and most schools are) then being in the middle set will put him at an advantage; all the extra resources will be put into students who are on the borderline between C and D grades (usually the middle sets) and he'll get tonnes of extra help and support. "

Whilst this used to be true, with the success measures for schools changing from %of 5A-C grades to now being on progress /attainment 8, this has now changed in a lot of schools. Focus is now much more on underachieving /ALG children.

Dumbledore, that's a really interesting perspective.

Middle sets at Dcs school did get As and grade 9s.

I think it is also true that middle sets got lots of attention. I don't think they could have taught Maths to an all ability group, they were working hard to get tne middle sets to grade 5 and above while the top sets did Maths and Further Maths in tne same curriculum time.

Well done for mixed ability teaching, and I guess it varies from subject to subject what is the best approach.

I see no need to segregate kids for the sake of it.

"Middle sets will get the most attention and interventions, as the difference between a C and a D ( or current equivalent) is the biggest between any two grades, and getting everyone possible into the realms of a safe C/ low B is a top priority."

It may have been- it is no longer.

Middle sets will get the most attention and interventions, as the difference between a C and a D ( or current equivalent) is the biggest between any two grades, and getting everyone possible into the realms of a safe C/ low B is a top priority.

And this is why I hate setting. I would never accept setting in my subject (I'm a history HOD). My GCSE groups are mixed ability ranging from very weak to very strong but with the more able more likely to choose the subject. This year I had two girls in my class who were predicted Bs, so set 2/4 rather than top set material if we had set them, who got A*s and one girl who would have been seen as set 3/4 material who got a B. Only Maths in our school has true setting and we get really good results, especially for kids from disadvantaged backgrounds. I was talking to an English teacher the other day who taught a lower band class and got 2 9s in her class. (They have 2 top band classes and two lower band classes rather than sets 1-4 if that makes sense). I would tell your DS that if he works hard University is definitely not out of reach.