Secondary School that doesn't set: any experience?

I can't cite the person who discussed the evidence with me

I don't want anyone's name, I would like to see the evidence. People can be very highly regarded and still be wrong! I keep mentioning Jo Boaler, she's a professor of mathematics, and as far as I'm concerned having looked at her work, she's bonkers.

@noblegiraffe.

When I said "cite my source" I meant the person who I was talking to, for clarity.(On a phone so can't scroll back easily). The only thing I am arguing is that there is some research in Scottish education which runs counter to the idea that some of the things on that graph are just USA based.

And I have been teaching a long time - long enough to see fads come and go. Hence my point. We need evidence, not anecdote. Anyone telling me that Jimmy did better in x school because they set / don't set / wear green hats, is going to get the same response.

And, as with all research, it is only worth considering, not blindly adopting. And much of it can be refuted using other research. It is also very hard to compare like with like in Education. Maybe it is the green hats / blue blazers / extra library books - maybe they had a good teacher.

Additionally, we are so often working in systems and structures over which we have limited control. We, therefore, need to be aware of the "research" being used to force change (Brain Gym, anyone) and also of what works for us.

I met someone (again, fairly high level in Scotland) who was discussing the co-operative learning models we have been pushed hard to adopt. Great, if kids are compliant. She teaches in rows, with hands up as anything else in her sink school is going to bring about serious issues with behaviour. Works for her and who am I to argue.

The top three subjects for A*/8/9 grades in my school last year were all taught mixed ability or loosely banded

You can't use GCSE results as evidence when the whole cohort does not take those GCSEs. My school got fab results for GCSE Art, the A*/A percentage was higher than that for maths. What does that tell us? That talented artists opt for Art GCSE.

I will say that despite obviously being very pro-setting in maths, there is a social justice argument that troubles me, particularly given the grammar school debates that were raging until very recently.

Just as there are few PP students in grammar schools, it is probably also likely to be few PP students in top sets. However the advantage of comps over grammar schools is the ability to move students between sets without having to change schools. Schools should certainly be very aware of their PP students and efforts should be made, where PP students are struggling, to give extra support to keep them in higher sets rather than moving them down as quickly as they might do with non-PP students. Similarly, PP students should be boosted to higher sets where they are potentially between two groups.

I don't think the social justice argument is sufficient to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The top three subjects for A/8/9 grades in my school last year were all taught mixed ability or loosely banded. The subjects that set did less well at the top end. Not sure that really means anything but the kids that I taught in mixed ability history were pushed. A third of my mixed ability class got As. There were a couple others in the group for whom the D they achieved was a good result.

@noblegiraffe. I can't cite the person who discussed the evidence with me because it will mean (another) name change. The person who discussed it with me also, ruefully, discussed the fact that "learning styles" has now been disproved, along with quite a lot of other dearly held beliefs. I am well aware of how research works.

And I didn't say I couldn't cite where it came from because I am challenging you, far from it. I am supporting you in suggesting we need evidence before we make changes in education. And I made it very clear that the graphic came from a quick Google, not from the person I spoke to.

I live in a country which does not track students till age 15but the difference is that the entire curriculum is taught whole-class from textbooks (no differentiation) right from the startthere are no "ability tables" at primary schools. Parents also tutor and push kids more. So the "spread" of attainment levels is smaller at secondary level.

I like the idea no-setting for 11-14yo in principle, but I seriously doubt whether it is feasible in the UK, given how our primary schooling works.

Can I just say that it's nice the thread has turned into a sensible discussion about groupings rather than the 'poor bright kids are being sacrificed as burnt offerings' stuff earlier on.

The posts have been really informative.

Here's a brief explanation of what I just referred to in cognitive load theory - giving instruction suitable for beginners to experts can cause what is being called the 'expertise reversal effect':

theelearningcoach.com/learning/novice-versus-expert-design-strategies/

"Why does the reversal effect happen? Several studies demonstrated that for advanced learners, processing the type of redundant information presented to a novice, could induce unnecessary cognitive load and distract the expert from the new material to be learned.

This is most likely because advanced learners have knowledge structures organized for efficiency and effectiveness in the real world. When they encounter too much instructional guidance, they have to stop to integrate and cross-reference this redundant material with their available knowledge structures, which uses up valuable cognitive resources."

Thanks for that link, Wobbly, results out in Spring 2018 so one to watch for next year.

However, it does say that the study only involves Y7 and Y8 pupils which means that the GCSE issue will remain unaddressed.

Reading this thread and the other regarding behaviour of pupils, is it any wonder many parents seek out selectively social and academic schools.

As I understand it, isn't much UK evidence on this but a study is underway - see this link:
www.tes.com/news/school-news/breaking-news/setting-ability-be-focus-major-academic-study

I'm watching this thread with interest as my son has just started at a secondary school that teaches in MA groups.

Just for clarity: is there high quality England-based peer-reviewed research evidence that setting DOES work

I guess you'd need to be careful in defining your terms before you could even start there. It seems from this thread that people use mixed ability to cover anything from random selections of kids in all classes to loose ability groups and/or the bottom end selected off for special intervention.
The EEF toolkit, where they look at and summarise the evidence for the benefit of English school leaders doesn't break the evidence down by subject or setting, they merely give a broad overview. The nuance may well be missed by school leaders who don't have any training or experience in carefully interpreting evidence and merely look at the '-1 low cost' figure.
educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/resources/teaching-learning-toolkit/setting-or-streaming/

But even the EEF say "Though the average impact of setting or streaming on low attaining pupils is negative, evidence suggests that certain types of grouping are more effective than others. Some studies have shown that reducing the size of the lowest attaining groups and assigning high-performing teachers to these groups can be effective, as can providing additional targeted catch up support."

I would think that most schools that set for maths front-load their top sets to make their bottom sets smaller, which here is suggested to be effective. Unfortunately in maths there are not many high-performing teachers left, and so whether bottom sets are assigned great teachers is more of an issue. (My school has lots of great maths teachers and we all teach the full spread of groups).

Dylan Wiliam has cautioned against using research evidence to override common sense, and I am certainly dubious that MA classes could provide the same sort of targeted teaching that we provide to different sets. I know that 'this is how we've always done it' isn't a good argument on its own, but if 'this is how we've always done it' solves problems that the other option throws up, then caution should be applied.

On top of this, I was looking at some research that was being posted on twitter the other day about cognitive load theory and about how experts in a subject need to be taught differently to beginners in a subject - experts need unstructured problem-solving, beginners need modelled solutions. I've not got my head around it but it certainly chimes with how I teach top sets versus how I teach bottom sets.

But noble, is there good research that supports setting?

I can see that, without good research on either side, it is easiest to state that we should stick with the status quo that seems to work for most people most of the time. However, we could end up with a scenario as there has been for infant reading - that teachers stick with a method that works for 80-90% (whole word recognition) because it doesn't seem to 'fail' all that many on an everyday basis, while in fact phonics would fail far fewer but isn't take up because 'what I do works fine'.

I can't cite my source but I have a Masters in Education and it is pretty impeccable.

I've got a Masters in Maths and a background in clinical research and if you can't cite the research then you might as well not have any. Research should surely be public and available for review?

merely suggesting the importance of research rather than anecdote

But we should also not become slaves to the latest research, be aware that one study is not impressive evidence, that what works in one classroom in one subject with one teacher and one group of children won't work in every classroom with any teacher teaching any subject to all children, and that we should keep common sense in mind when selecting teaching strategies.

Look how having research behind it has turned out for Growth Mindset. Schools jumped all over it, massively adopted, the research hasn't been replicated and now everyone's a bit embarrassed by the whole thing.

I disagree with the uses that it doesn't matter if a bright child doesn't achieve their potential because they will still do better than the lowest ability.
Actually what often happens is the child is so bored tgatbrhey stop trying. They start playing up too. How often have you seen in here stories of very able teens that had gone off the track and failed their GCSE or Alevels because if that???

Is it also worth the stress and the anxiety of those teens?

IMO saying that it doesn't matter if xxx doesnt do well is rubbish. Everyone deserves to be treated well and respected fir what they can do. No k e should be put in a cupboard and forgotten about. Higher or lower ability people. That's the same.

I have a low ability child. I prefer the setted teaching that I have seen to the mixed ability teaching I have seen.

In sets, my DD2 seems to be happier, more confident, and to make more progress.

I also know that in my DDs school they regularly review sets and move pupils as they see fit. DD1 moved from set 7/10 to set 3/10 in maths during her time at secondary.

binary code

Ah mixed ability maths.. covering for an absent maths teacher colleague where a 2nd year ( back in the day) struggled with Smile mathsbnary code whilst being unable to add up in tens and units. mixed ability teaching can be a disservice to weaker pupils too.

Noble,
Just for clarity: is there high quality England-based peer-reviewed research evidence that setting DOES work (for Maths, and then for subjects other than Maths)?

Or is part of the issue that there is no quality research for either side of the argument, but that custome-and-practice is mostly setting, and that relatively poor research is being used to justify a move away from custom-and-practice?

I can't cite my source but I have a Masters in Education and it is pretty impeccable. The person who was discussing it was using it as a way of showing that the government's priorities for Scottish Education are not research based as they are valuing things that don't make much difference.

And Scottish education is very different. For a start, pupil are entered at different levels, the lower ones needing no exams (which many oppose) and you progress through 1 year long courses. This allows for quite a lot of flexibility. It is a skills based curriculum (which is also controversial and I largely oppose) so the first three years have to offer a common curriculum which is having a dire effect on standards, but hey, they have ticked all the boxes.

So, in a sense, however mixed it is in S1-3 it has to be set on a subject, by subject basis for the last 3 years of school.

Additionally, I am not using the graph to argue for anything, merely suggesting the importance of research rather than anecdote. I have a lot of dull references but, for the purposes of this thread I though a hastily googled graphic (not the exact one I was given) would do.

They have done some research in Scotland

I think teachers need to be very careful if they think that ‘done some research’ actually means quality or meaningful evidence. Like assuming that evidence from the US applies to the UK, or that we should pay attention to Jo Boaler.

noblegiraffe
In that school they were largely mixed ability. Most of the cohort cluster in the middle and then the tail ends were assigned so you didn't get old level 8 and old level 3 in one group.

Most.schools i've been in even when they have mixed teaching groups have a different pathway for those who will struggle to access GCSE E.G. days off site, provision witj local charities, extra literacy and numeracy, work skills courses.

can't
My personal preference is the 'somewhat restricted range' set up for my subject.
Whilst not perfect, it does offer many of the pros for MA and setting.

Other subjects may be different (i know a lot of maths and MFL colleagues say setting works best in their subjects).