Secondary School that doesn't set: any experience?

I went to a comprehensive in the 1970s where some subjects such as History were not setted. This did not prevent me achieving top GCSE grades but it did mean that I was constantly bored, completely unengaged with these subjects and had no interest in pursuing them to 6th form.

you'd get a class sort of 3/4-6 and another 5-9

So you’re saying you actually group by ability?

A lot of parallel sets taking foundation

There is the assumption there that every foundation student is taught all the foundation content (and every higher student is taught all the higher content). This doesn’t actually happen in practice.
For example, I taught the top foundation group last year. I taught them everything on foundation, which included trigonometry (thanks Gove). The groups below did not get taught trigonometry and spent that time (probably a month over 2 years) concentrating on other topics.
What would be the point in a student who is about a grade 3 being taught trigonometry when they could be spending that time focusing on numeracy or other weak areas to try to get them to a 4?
And if the suggestion is to take the ones who would handle it and teach them trig, then you are grouping by ability but in a more inconvenient way.

I think that there is a difference between

• 'fully granular setting': the whole year group ranked in exam result / target grade order and then split into strictly hierarchical groups numbered 1-8 and

• 'somewhat restricted range' ability grouping: the year group ordered into a smaller number of larger groups, and then parallel mixed classes within each group. his could either be a small top and bottom and a very large middle (1 top set, 1 lower, 7 middle) or equal sizes 93 top, 3 middle, 3 lower) depending on the subject and the specific exam - Maths is the only one left with tiers.

They have done some research in Scotland and I went to a presentation in which they were cited this week. The large classes thing is interesting, however (as an aside) in that the data shows small class sizes makes little difference BUT there is other evidence that it does as long as teaching methodology is altered to make the most of it. If you are all "chalk and talk" then it makes no difference. However, if you can use it as a chance to offer more feedback (other end of the graph) then it does.

And feedback is interesting. A class in synch on a single topic / essay / whatever are likely to need similar feedback, thus meaning it can be done from the front, largely. A class at different levels (like my own, as I say, tiny school ,whole year group) means lots and lots of one-to-one and relies on good behaviour (or behaviour management) to make that happen.

Fascinating subject.

Noble

In that situation we wpuld have the 1s/2s and some of the 3s in an intervention group whi would usually not do a language or take one fewer option.
Then 3/4-9 in main groups but you'd get a class sort of 3/4-6 and another 5-9 if that makes sense. So they'd still be mixed ability but no single class would have both tail ends.

MrsKnightley as I said upthread, the EEF data mainly comes from the US, where children repeat classes that they failed (don’t they have AP classes too?) As their school system is so different to ours, we really shouldn’t be using their evidence to advise changes within our system.

cantkeepawayforever
I think we are.

You speak a lot of sense.

Even a few high/mid (9-6) and a few lowrr mid (4-6) and a lower group for people who struggle to access GCSE would work well.

What always interests me is that it's almost always the parents of higher ability students who spend a disproportionate time being annoyed at groups.

At one school I taught at there were more children with the same high targets so we had 3 groups all with the same targets, all doing the same course, all able to get full marks. Some parents actually called up to complain about the number on their child's timetable! No amount of pointing out the 3 classes were the same was good enough. Thry wanted their child to have a 1 on their timetable.
Made me laugh in the end when some of my low set students got As and As by sheer hard work and the children who had been told by home they were entitled to an A didn't

mmzz,

I agree that in some schools, Mastery is implemented in a way that doesn't challenge the most able. We have a cohort skewed to the more able, so this was something we were VERY careful about.

Have a look, for example, at nrich, or books by MC Emmett, or any of the range of books that look at 'mathematical challenge': a lot of the underpinning maths is simple, but it doesn't mean that the problem is simple to solve.

This one, for example, is simply the formal method of short multiplication - but if my lesson om Monday was on short multiplication and some of the class were still at the stage of practising the algorithm, the more able would still find that problem, and the 4 or 5 related ones I might give them, challenging.

carefully selected so the very top and very bottom students in the year generally wouldn't end up in the same group

That would make things easier but in my school we have a top set of 32 who will get 8s and 9s and a bottom set of 10 who will get up to 1s and 2s and take entry level qualifications. I can’t see how that spread could be avoided when there are only 9 groups.

Maisy, i think you and I are saying something very similar - that there is no point about splitting those in the 'average' range into a large number of very slightly different hierarchical sets, because the range of ability within thee overall cohort is not actually that large.

However, a couple of single class sets - one very high, one very low - can complement a large number of parallel 'middle' sets well.

It's true that being able to verbalise a concept in maths is an extremely valuable skill,. Ditto marking another child's English work and being able to identify www and ebi.
However, when an individual child experiences several hours per week of P2P coaching and doesn't have the teacher actually look at their work for 11 weeks in a 12 week term, then there is a problem.

Mastery sounds great and I bet it works really well for those who previously learned new things without having mastered the old stuff. However Mastery with a capital M is not so great for those who pick things up faster.

This image provides evidence of the things that work to create progress. Oddly, setting comes out as making little difference, and is low cost.

Not arguing one way or the other but evidence is the only way forward in classrooms, not anecdotal evidence about kids who are always, on Mumsnet, high ability.

I appreciate, by the way, that the fully unset approach appropriate for a year group curriculum in primary is NOT the same as being unset right to GCSE (X-posted).
However, I do think that the setting structure could very easily be 'collapsed' to an absolute maximum of 4 levels, even at GCSE:

• A single top set
• A lot of parallel sets also taking Higher
• A lot of parallel sets taking foundation
• A very small SEN set who may not access GCSE Maths at all and whose targets may relate to functional Maths

Up to Year 9, a top set, a large number of middle sets and an SEN set would be sifficient.

Given the bell curve of ability, the vast majority of students will sit in that 'middle section', which actually covers quite a small range of ability. the top set and the SEN group would then deal with the 'outliers', who each span a range of ability at least equal to the whole middle section (though in practice the SEN range is truncated by the existence of special schools)

It is conceit though to pretend you are teaching a particular child when at that moment they are explaining to another child what you've just said but the other child didn't understand
That IS a teaching strategy.
It's not good to use more able children as substitutes for TAs. It is not good to have them helping other children every lesson.
BUT, peer tutoring IS a valuable teaching strategy whether you choose to believe it or not.

I've already said that sets, mixed ability and something in the middle can all work well and in my experience there is no difference to outcomes in terms of progress from starting points.

I'm not some massive activist for Mixed Ability teaching but I will speak up when people are spouting nonsense about a grouping method/ teaching strategy they clearly have limited knowledge about.

See noble
When I've been mixed ability the groups were mixed ability but carefully selected so the very top and very bottom students in the year generally wouldn't end up in the same group (unless it was unavoidable lile my 5 levels in one class, but then they allocated teachers to that class carefully).

Most of the year would be clustered eg l4-6/5-7 anyway which is reasonable and comparable with the range in a primary class. Then one class may gain yhr ones just below and anothet couple of grouos would gain the top.

I think MA is more of an issue if you have a cohort with 2 big tail ends at the top/bottom.

I teach in a primary that did set for Maths and now doesn't. Our teaching approaches have changed (adoption of a Mastery approach, but ensuring a really deep challenge within that for very able children - ie challenge within a concept rather than by acceleration onto new material), and so for the first few years planning has been quite onerous.

Our results have improved. This has been for those children who would previously been in lower sets, carefully coached in a smaller group at a slower pace, children in the middle, AND for the most able.

Finding challenge within a concept can be really tricky. It can be easiest in arithmetic - long multiplication fluency calculations for the majority, missing digit or letters-as-digits challenges for the more able - but we are getting increasingly good at it across the curriculum. The 'year group based' primary curriculum has really helped us in taking this path, and it is working well.

You might well have thought 'these children can't be combined in a single set'.

I very rarely use peer coaching BUT I very highly value the ability to explain a concept as well as do it. Some of my higher ability pupils REALLY struggle with explanations, as it doesn't match their belief of what 'being good at maths' looks like.

@Maisypops - clearly you think you know what I want, but don't.
What I think is a school is made up of a series of unique students and that any grouping will involve compromises. What we are debating on this thread (or at least I thought we were debating on this thread) is whether it's better to have mixed ability classes or sets ie where to make the compromises.

And whether
It is conceit though to pretend you are teaching a particular child when at that moment they are explaining to another child what you've just said but the other child didn't understand.

Every class will have a mix of abilities

While this is true, sets have a much narrower mix of abilities making it much easier to pitch the main input. You’re not going to have the weakest and the brightest student in the same class.

Mixed ability classes will not work unless you have extremely good behaviour already across the school and fantastic teachers. I suspect in schools where it seems to be working, behaviour was already good.
I agree on thr behaviour factor.
I run a tight ship in my classroom and have had no issues with MA teaching.

I have known colleagues who let more slide and they have had more issues.

But, that is also amplified with setting.

E.g. if you get a top set or a higher set you will tend to have the students who behave better.
If you have a lower set you get a disproportionate amount of children aho don't behave, which is how you get sink groups.

There are pros and cons to both.

Both systems rely on having strong teachers with firm behaviour management to be successful.

it does create a mentality among those in sets 10/11/12 that they will never be able to achieve above their set level.

Given the obsession in England with target grades, putting a weak child in a mixed ability class isn’t going to hide from them that less is expected of them than the rest of the class.

One thing fans of mixed ability don’t seem to have addressed is that there is selection in Y9. Students choose which GCSEs to take and usually, if a student is very weak in a subject, they don’t take it. This narrows the range of ability of students in GCSE classes. Science splits off the brightest into triple science classes. Maths and English are the only GCSE subjects taken by the full cohort. In English it is easier to differentiate by outcome (did any English teacher talk about text selection in MA groups?) and English teachers are saying it’s not a problem. So we’re left with maths, teaching the full cohort, the full range of ability, two tiers of exams with the more able students needing to be taught a whole range of topics that the other half of the year group don’t need to know. In my School the weakest do entry level qualifications and the most able do further maths GCSE so we also have groups being prepared for different qualifications as well as different tiers of entry.
I would love to hear from any maths teacher that teaches MA all the way to GCSE how this is managed without largely leaving pupils to teach themselves (remember the old SMP cards? That’s how maths used to be ‘taught’ MA).

WOULDN’T surprise me if...

cantkeepawayforever
Absolutely.

It can also give confidenve to students who may be wary of sharing ideas because they've already had feedback from a peer.

What this thread is showing me is that people who understand teaching methods and grouping will say there are pros/cons to a range of methods and grouping and that teh success of a strategy or group system is based on teaching decisions rather than an inehrent flaw with the method.

People who have limited understanding/experience of grouping systems amd teaching methods will make broad sweeping statements about how the entire system is deisgned to sacrifice bright kids and that any overlap between bright kids and less academic kids holds smart kids back / any overlap in method only proves how schools don't want to challenge their more able.

We have a local school that used to be private so quite small classes. Mixed ability apparently worked well, as you might expect. It became an academy and has increased the intake over the past couple of years. The classs are now larger and as far as I know mixed ability still (or they were when it came to apply for my DSs). I was not confident that they could keep the same standards with a much higher number of pupils in a mixed ability class. I know that they were advertising for various SEN Staff soon after increasing their numbers, so maybe it because apparent to them that larger classes meant that teachers were less able to focus on pupils’ with additional needs than they had been previously.

I am a cynic, having worked in a secondary school for the past 8 years. There are a lot of changes put in place because of lack of funding, or because it makes things easier for the running of the school but not necessarily better if you see what I mean.

As an example my school used to have an hour and 5 min lunch break. Everyone was on lunch at the same time which meant plenty of Staff available to do lunch duties ie monitor behaviour on yards and Corridors. Better sense of staff morale as colleagues would eat together in the Staff room. Time available for pupils to print out homework, attend a club etc.

They then switched to a system of 2 different 40 min breaks. It’s chaotic and frenzied and doesn’t lead to a calm atmosphere for pupils going into afternoon classes. There is not enough time to sort out pastoral issues properly and often heads of year end up on a different lunch break to children who are need an issue sorting. Not enough time to run any lunchtime clubs. No staff in the Staff rooms which has led to a decline in the sense of cameraderie. Staff lunch duty rota is a nightmare with Staff forever having to ask for a swap with someone on the opposite lunch break. Minimal visible staff around to prevent behavioural issues building up. I’ve had to break up physical fights with no other adult visible or within shouting distance. It doesn’t feel safe to me now.

Yet, both Staff and pupils have voted to keep the system because it means that school finishes earlier. Staff who have kids in local schools can rush off at 3.10 in time to pick them up, unlike before. But it means that that they are often not available after school if you want to set up a meeting with them, and they’re not available to see a pupil who may be struggling with something. It is also said that there are FEWER behavioural issues because of the shorter lunches with fewer pupils on each. My opinion is that no, there are actually MORE, they are just not being seen in the first place by a lot of staff, or dealt with properly due to lack of time so it must FEEL to staff that they are dealing with fewer pastoral issues.

The real reason lunch was switched to a 2 lunch break system was because they built on 2 of the yards and there is now nowhere for pupils to physically go at lunchtime. Complete lack of forethought during the planning process. But because pupils like to get off Home earlier (who’d Have thought it?!) then I am told that “people like this system and have voted to keep it”

Whether it is BETTER for all is a whole other matter.

This is what I suspect is the case with schools choosing to switch to mixed ability classes. They will tell you one or two advantages (while ignoring the major disadvantages), but I suspect the real reason is due to funding as a couple of others have mentioned. Fewer classes will be needed, so fewer teachers. They are getting rid of TAs left right and centre. I suspect that schools are hoping that mixed ability classes will improve the behaviour of disaffected kids too. In my experience that won’t happen in a lot of schools. In my school there are disaffected pupils in sets 2 and 3, not just bottom sets. Brighter pupils in sets 2, for example, often complain that progres of the class is impeded by a couple of kids being naughty then a few others give up and join in.

The other reason they may be doing it is because of the progrsss 8 thing. In my school, low ability pupils are not making required progress. It would surprise me if they decided to change to a mixed ability system to try to raise the aspirations of disaffected kids using the high-achieving hard-working kids as examoles. What should be happening is that bottom set disaffected kids should be given outstanding teachers to inspire them.

Mixed ability classes will not work unless you have extremely good behaviour already across the school and fantastic teachers. I suspect in schools where it seems to be working, behaviour was already good.

Peer coaching is interesting, because it can as easily occur in a supposedly 'equal ability' set as in a mixed ability set.

DD is in the top set (30 out of a year group of around 240) in Maths, and is probably within the top 5 of that set (though as she prefers to show her work in writing, her teacher persists in thinking that she is not able because she's not practically standing on her seat waving her hand shouting 'Me! Me! Me! I know the answer').

He has commented, though, that she is very good in paired work. She describers her daily experience thus: 'The teacher teaches us something. i understand it. When we are asked to do paired work, i explain it to my partner, who usually doesn't 'get it' from the teaching. Then she understands it. Then we do the independent work.'

Apparently it works very well, especially as her partner is only too happy to put her hand up to say that DD has the right answer and would like to share it with the class, something that DD wouldn't do for herself....