Secondary School that doesn't set: any experience?

Maisypops - no, I doubt the level 7s are helping the year 9s, so all you are talking about is what level the 9s are teaching at.
And that proves you didn't bother to read my post at all.
They are PREDICTED 7-9. But someone predicted a 9 can be a weaker creative writer than someone predicted a 7.
In fact, shock horror. Students predicted 7-9 will often be working at 6s at the start of the course because a few months in theu don't have all thr knowledge and exam technique to get their target. (And then we have parebts call up demanding to know why their child isn't at their end of y11 target 7 weeks into y10 because 'they are very bright and you aren't stretching them')

What does work though is putting the most able together and letting them banter about their mistakes/ compete with each other. It gives an incentive to work mistake free that doesn't come naturally with setting overly easy work.
Who mentioned setting easy work?
There is a time and a place for that approach but that's not a teaching strategy for stretching more able students. They need high level input, good questioning, more advanved thinking prompts, heavily scaffolded routes through more advanced material. Students can't discover what they don't know.

Clearly you want a situation where only the very very brightest only ever work with the very very brightest because they might pick up the stupid from any child who isn't as awesome as they are. Any interaction with someone who doesn't meet mum abd dad's criteria of a suitable partner is obviously going to damage their child's education.

To be honest, the kind of attitude you display towards kids who don't have the 'correct' target is ridiculous.

My dss' school used only to set for maths. Now they set for maths from year 7 (hierarchical sets), have a top set for English and languages but the rest mixed ability (except for a small support set who access a different curriculum), have a top set for science in years 7 and 8, then increasingly structured science setting in years 9-11, and mixed ability for all other subjects. Changing to have a top set in some subjects instead of fully mixed ability in all lessons improved GCSE results and progress 8 for all ability levels, not just at the top end of the ability spectrum, although the increase in the number of highest grades was certainly noticeable. How much that is due to the change in setting policy and how much to do with senior leadership maybe supporting staff better and expecting higher standards, I wouldn't know. It is a large comprehensive secondary school. As the parent of children within the top 1% of the ability range, I am personally happy with this setting arrangement! Children are also not fixed in stone in the top set: there has been movement in and out of the top set in years 7, 8 and the start of year 9, although I should imagine it may become less fluid after that, as GCSEs approach. It certainly seems better than sending kids off to an entirely different school at 11, where flexibility is then lost to move children up and down sets between the grammar schools and non-grammars. Behaviour at the school is good and parental support for the school, children's attitudes and teachers' morale all seemed to be boosted by the change. Again, I have no idea if this is because the leadership is good and staff on board, so people trust the changes to work and don't fight or argue against it, or because the changes were necessary to improve results!

Imo, the fact staff at the school the OP looked at happily talk about the top 10% of children not benefiting at all from the change to mixed ability would seriously put me off. I don't want teachers being complacent about the group of children my own children happen to be a part of! (And fwiw, there is a huge range of ability within the top 10%, so the top 10% are still very much mixed ability!!!).

Every class will have a mix of abilities
I agree with this too. In fact is go as far as to say that the top and bottom sets are the ones that are going to have the widest ability ranges (due to the normal distribution of intelligence)

Maisypops - no, I doubt the level 7s are helping the year 9s, so all you are talking about is what level the 9s are teaching at.
What does work though is putting the most able together and letting them banter about their mistakes/ compete with each other. It gives an incentive to work mistake free that doesn't come naturally with setting overly easy work.

I think that policy encourages teachers to work towards optimising the exam performance of the children who are likely to perform close to whichever grade boundaries the person setting the pay policy has chosen. I'm not sure it helps the children who'll definitely pass or fail
That's not how it works.
Progress is assessed for EVERY child based on their starting point. That's what Progress 8 is.

Every class will have a mix of abilities
This. Even in a top set there will be a range of aptitudes.
In my very able group this year I have some great creative writers, some weaker creative writers who struggle with ideas. I have some who are great at Shakespeare and others who struggle.

I quite like using peer to peer support but this thread has informed me that it's the worst thing on earth to have kids helping each other. Or am I ok to have children working together because they are all predicted 7-9?

@Sopassremarkable I think that policy encourages teachers to work towards optimising the exam performance of the children who are likely to perform close to whichever grade boundaries the person setting the pay policy has chosen. I'm not sure it helps the children who'll definitely pass or fail.

A friend of mine is a teacher and his annual increment is dependent on kids passing exams. Not sure if that's standard. But if it is isnt there the risk that teachers concentrate on the lower ability kids and leave the higher achievers to their own devices more? Dd felt that at school, not sure if her teachers were worried about pay rises or just stats/figures.

I think it is dangerous to assume kids can just be grouped in nice evenly split groups where they are all at the same level.

Every class will have a mix of abilities. DS came up this way and DD is still doing it. Both have done very, very well. Because the school has no choice about MA classes, teachers have become skilled at dealing with it.

I'm not convinced it's right to just lump "high ability" vs "mid ability" vs "low ability" and associate each with a type of behaviour and work ethic. My DCs have found some of the most disruptive to be perfectly capable of A*s, and some of the hardest workers to be pupils who worked their absolute socks off only to scrape the necessary grades.

I think it affects different groups differently. My DD1 and DS1 were barely placed in sets (and when they were for maths in year 10/11 they were still mixed ability to an extent) yet neither suffered, because they were motivated and hardworking as well as being naturally bright. I think the group it would hinder would be those who were very intelligent but less adaptable, and happy to coast as long as they were still at the top of their class. It would probably do most of these children best to be in sets - but I can't see another group where it benefits the majority. It just doesn't seem fair to immediately label a group of children as "set 1" and another as "set 12", because it does create a hierarchy, and it does create a mentality among those in sets 10/11/12 that they will never be able to achieve above their set level.

I also think the fact of the matter remains - if a very intelligent child doesn't reach their full potential, they still come out of education with a lot more to show for it and a lot more chances than a less academic child who's done their absolute best. That's why they have to be the priority in schools where all abilities exist. And I say that as a parent of high achieving children - DD1 got full marks across all her year 6 SATs, DD2 came close, and DS still got level 6s where available and level 5s (I don't know what this means for the percentages everyone else refers to!).

The ideal is a system that works for everyone - setting is definitely not that, and mixed ability isn't either but it's a good sight closer from what I can tell.

I know the answers to my own question: repititionand the teacher will pretend that is just a problem for this one topic, she'll forget that it happened last week too and she'll not give a thought to how it will happen next week as well
Umm what?
It's ONE strategy in a classroom. ONE of many. Other support goes in for those children through marking, intervention etc.
They may well use that stratgy on another topic because it is GOOD to have children explaining things. It doesn't mean the child explaining is fulfilling the role of a TA (for people to suggest that shows limjted understanding of a TA role)

In a nutshell you don't want to see bright children helping any weaker children, it would be much better if you child only had to work in a group with other children who are similarly able.

Incidentally, my school had a very socialist slant on life

I taught in a mixed ability school and in my school it caused huge problems. You get some pupils of low ability but with strong social skills and this can make it hard to establish a serious work ethic. If a less able pupil finds the work difficult, their sense ofself can feel threatened and they can msbehave. Mixed ability can work for the first year and workd better in some subject area than others. I think flexible setting is better.

And after their knowledge is cemented so that they literally can do the problem from any angle using any form of words, but another child in the room is still struggling, what then?
I know the answers to my own question: repitition and the teacher will pretend that is just a problem for this one topic, she'll forget that it happened last week too and she'll not give a thought to how it will happen next week as well

This whole thing of the more able helping the less able. What% of their school career should they be doing it? Actually leaning over and explaining to someone else how to do something?
Peer tutoring/coaching is a useful strategy.
I use it at least once a fortnight but it requires a very well planned seating plan so the pairs are appropriate (e.g. not very top with very bottom).
They shouldn't be spending hours on it a week as that is poor differentiation.

That said, being able to do something is easier than being able to explain it to someone else. That is why not all people with doctorates in their subject make good teachers. I've had more able students plan literacy starters and teach the class before for 10 mins.

I don't get on board with the idea that MA is sacrificing the more able students. I really don't.
If a teacher isn't differentiating to meet thr needs of their students then that is a TEACHING issue, not a grouping issue.

But its not sacrificing their potential, its helping them reach it by cementing their knowledge in their minds even better. I agree it shouldn't be done too much but it has its place and its very helpful to all. I did it a lot when I was in school and found it very helpful to aid my own understanding as well as actually enjoying 'teaching' it to my classmates. It must be done as part of a balance, some time doing their own individually set work, some time spent helping others, some time learning as a whole class. Several hours a week is too much though.

This whole thing of the more able helping the less able. What% of their school career should they be doing it? Actually leaning over and explaining to someone else how to do something? Because both my DC do several hours of it every single week and have been for nearly a decade. It's the equivalent of a part-time TA (unpaid). Ds2 is especially good at it, such that he is often seated next to a struggling child.
It sounds great, but apart from becoming rather good at getting inside someone else's head and figuring out what bit they aren't understanding, I'm not sure that I wouldn't have preferred that they be allowed to get on with their own, appropriately set work.
To me the whole policy stinks of a high handed, rather smug decision to sacrifice the potential of the most able for the greater good. And then to cap it all, to tell the more able children that they should be proud to serve.

Mmzz The teachers differentiate within the class so teach in a slightly different way to the more able than to the less able in order for them all to grasp the basic concepts. I think (although not sure as my child has only just started school so I haven't experienced it myself yet) that the more able do help the less able, which is good as nothing cements knowledge in your mind quite as much as trying to teach it to someone else. This is how its done throughout comprehensive school (which ends at 15/16) its not until after that that they separate out into different tracks - academic, vocational, or mixed.
Class sizes are much smaller though (20 is average I think, in DD's school usually around 15) - I think class sizes in the UK are a disgrace and not conducive to the best learning. There is a very wide use of special ed so ones that are really struggling to grasp the concepts in time can get extra help from the special ed teacher until they catch up.

My DCs school set from year 7 for maths and science. English in year 8 and everything thing else from year 10. Each and every time that a new subject started to set, their experience improved.
Ds1 is in the to 1% for maths, and top 15%for everything. Even with setting, his experience in maths is that it has been painfully slow and even though he obviously has a talent for it, he finds the lessons extremely boring, even the extension work is not challenging at all.
God knows what it would have been like if he'd been in a class with a child who still can't remember how to apply Pythagoras's theorem. When the teacher address the whole class, who should they be pitching the lesson at? Not my son obviously but whose child as they are all different.

Each to their own noble but it's growing in popularity and is very effective for personalizing learning and giving ownership to the children.

My DCs school used to do it for Y7.

TBH it was no different from primary school.

DS was in the top 10% and it didn't hold him back.

Having said that they now set, but TBH I'd rather they didn't.

@Natsku but how do you decide what maths to teach the class? The most able child will either be doing endless repitition of long-since mastered skills or the least able child will be constantly moving on to new topics without having developed a secure understanding of the preceding one.
Or both will apply, if you set at a pace appropriate for the median child.

I did say earlier that its perfectly possible to teach MA in maths but I didn't think about the issue of separate papers in the GCSE system - that would make it much more difficult. Here all the children learn the same maths so there's no need to set as you don't need to be teaching different things to different ability groups but I had forgotten about the difference between the papers in the UK.

So it does depend an awful lot on the teaching
Of course it does. And that is the same for setting too.
Sadly lots of people on this thread just want to mope about and say mixed ability never works, it's all about ruining the futures of their bright children.
The same argument could be used against setting because there's a danger of sink sets.

In both setting and MA, it is how it is taught that matters.

Pengggwn
You and me both, and most of my colleagues in my last few schools. But hey, let's not let people with experience of multiple schools get in the way of 'my child had a teacher who... therefore MA is about sacrificing and holding back bright children'

I think saying it works for English ignores those pupils who need a lot of repetition of the basics
No it doesn't.
The students who often need extra work with the basics have a TA in with them, or they have additional intervention with a small grpup tutor acroas the timetable, or they don't study a language and that time is allocated to working on thr basics.

Then in class, a teacher might want to pull a group of 5 and do some work with thrm on thr basics whilst the rest of the class do an independent task. Then next week, the top end might need some small group input so whilst the class get on the teacher gives them small group teaching.

I enjoy teaching sets. I enjoy teaching mixed ability. I enjoy teaching somewhere in the middle. There's pros and cons to all. All can work well.
I don't get the tiny violin playing about an entire grouping strategy.

Mixed ability in all subjects does seem to be an idea whose time has come. It's probably because the EEF toolkit says that the evidence for it is negative: educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/resources/teaching-learning-toolkit/setting-or-streaming/
But as I said way upthread, I'm extremely dubious of the evidence for maths, and as the EEF toolkit says, the studies are mostly from the US where they make students repeat a year/class if they fail.

I've certainly noticed that some people who think the maths should be setted don't understand that maths should be treated differently to other subjects - it's a completely different difficulty model to e.g. English where work can be improved upon by including more detail. That's why maths also needs a completely different marking policy to the rest of the school. You cannot assess a piece of maths work and say that a good student can go up a grade by improving an existing piece of work. To go up a grade they have to answer a different question correctly.