Secondary School that doesn't set: any experience?

but do use the flight path idea

That reminds me of a thread I once posted: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/secondary/2979988-School-reports-which-give-your-kids-GCSE-grades-or-flightpaths-are-bollocks

My (secondary) school is fully mixed ability in all subjects. This is because the school is tiny so 1 class per year. They move into different levels in S4 (Scotland - Year of first exams, all courses 1 year) but are still, often, taught in one class. So I might have 2 different levels in an exam class, but overlap between what they are doing.

In practice it means I have bands in lessons, much like primary. Easier in English, but they work in groups (sometimes mixed, sometimes ability). I don't teach many whole class texts but sometimes have, for example, 3 different autobiographies bring read by different groups but the lessons focus on the features of a typical autobiography with examples drawn from all three texts. We would all study "Romeo and Juliet" by watching the film and reading sections - but the most able would be working on imagery while others might just have a more basic grasp of plot.

They are all learning and results are very good.

Maths struggles with this. They have no choice but results are poor.

Other subjects manage as I do.

Several schools that i know near us don't set except for maths but do use the flight path idea. This seems to be increasingly popular for ensuring pupils are working at differentiated levels and meet their potential.

MA classes are fairly hellish for bright children IME. Boring, easy work. Get bullied for being smart or get used as an unpaid TA. Just one more way to keep the class system entrenched--those that can afford it will pay for a decent education and those that can't will learn just how joyless learning can be.
Brutally put, but spot on (sadly). Every word is absolutely how it is

Fascinating. Our closest comp is MA for all subjects. Head was very dismissive at open day and told me setting was only happening in our area and MA was normal everywhere else. This thread suggests otherwise. I am less concerned about other subjects, but just can't see how it works for maths.

I think saying it works for English ignores those pupils who need a lot of repetition of the basics.

How can this possibly work in maths? i can see it working for sciences, arts & English especially in y7-9 but even in those there are going to be pupils who are ready for much more than the others--will they just have to wait for a-levels where they can specialize?

I'd love someone to explain how it's possible to teach a wide range of abilities for maths without leaving anyone out.

MA classes are fairly hellish for bright children IME. Boring, easy work. Get bullied for being smart or get used as an unpaid TA. Just one more way to keep the class system entrenched--those that can afford it will pay for a decent education and those that can't will learn just how joyless learning can be.

Having said all that, dd (99th percentile plus on all the various tests ed psychs carry out, so definitely in the high achiever group) is in a very small rural secondary with 80 in her year hence by default there's no setting of option subjects as not enough pupils.

This means she's in triple science classes where there are pupils sitting foundation, intermediate & higher papers. In contrast the school has pulled out a set '1a' for maths of pupils aiming for A* at GCSE.

Result - science is fantastic, she's totally engaged and never bored. Maths - crawling up the walls at the slow pace as it seems are 3/4 of the class as the teacher pitches every lesson to the slowest / least engaged pupil in the class. So it does depend an awful lot on the teaching . . . .

I remember doing a bit of investigation after a previous thread along these lines, and finding some fairly solid looking international comparisons that showed amongst other things that at secondary level maths essentially pretty much all developed countries either (a) set, or (b) have a system where re-taking years is not only possible but relatively common, or alternatively (c) have more than one secondary 'track' - so eg vocational vs academic highschools (not necessarily competitive to get into, sometimes 'self-sorting' of pupils) I guess the latter would be similar to choosing an applied math class in Nooka's example above.

The message of the thread as a whole seems to be that setting vs mixed ability is a "zero sum game" between the most able and the middle and less able.

OP, it sounds like your DD would be better off at another school, if possible, given that you say she is in the top 10%.

My dd is bright, and at a school that refuses to set at all, in any subject. Except that in yr8 they have put a small number of very low achievers into a separate maths class.
I spoke to the head. He said that not setting is fine for all except the top 5 %. He was clearly happy to sacrifice them. Told me to remove my dd if I didn't like it.
The teachers don't differentiate much. What seems to happen in practice is that the less academic struggle and the academic aren't stretched. Loads of children get private tutoring. So exam results are good and the school takes the credit.
I am doing a lot of home tutoring of my dd. Otherwise she would never learn how to work at the right level for her.

MA helps that attitude IME.

Setting often means previously well behaved children stop making the effort as so much teacher time is taken up with behaviour in 'sink sets.'

And yes I can also confirm that the issue is not just about ability and at which level a child is working
It's also and foremost about the attitude to learning, attitude to those who do well (aka being good at something isn't just being a nerd and therefore a source of jokes) and attitude to putting the work in (who make an effort to do extremely well when you can do very well with no effort at all?)

I deeply regret the school Dc1 is at.

Dc1 is in a school where they set quite late in in secondary and only for very few subjects.
It's a disaster for him TBH.
Because yes he is on the top 10% and as the HT mentioned, itdoesnt work for those children.

I wish I had released how important it would be for Dc1.

Dc2 is more middle of the run type of thing is much happier (and doing better) than Dc1.

O no, in retrospect, I wouldnt send my DC to a school with no sets.

Personal experience of not setting at school was disastrous. I literally did nothing. I was very bright and well behaved which put me at the bottom of the teachers priority list.

As a teacher I have found setting very helpful for staff and students alike. I would suggest that those who suffer most in a complete mixed ability system are the very brightest. They will probably get on anyway but not necessarily be happy. If your child is very bright maybe you should see what the other options are available. I think mixed ability schools might work best where you have the least disparity in intake so it might be worth working at midyis bands for the school in year seven historically.

This is very much based on personal experience though.

I definitely agree English can be taught to mixed ability - we do this in FE and we get results from 9 downwards so it's absolutely possible. We have one tier for language.
However, the issue about setting seems to be about behaviours or attitude to learning, not about children's ability to learn. DS1 and DS2 both comment on the problems in mixed ability classes of those who don't want to learn distracting everyone else. If this problem is dealt with then that reason for setting is removed,

Toffee - ah yes, you’ve outed me!

My last few schools have all set for maths and languages. Other subjects it has varied.

As a Pp said, Mixed ability doesn't work if you teach to the middle, but that is a teaching issue not a grouping issue.

I work in a school that sets for maths and science but nothing else. We are a leading school, outstanding in all areas and have many high achievers going to top universities etc.

darceybussell
I went to a secondary school that didn’t set and it was bloody awful to be honest.
You went to the Royal Ballet School, surely?

Hadn't seen Morbid's post when i posted that.

I wonder if English is more suited to MA than Maths. My school didn't set in English but did consider it necessary for Maths and Noble thinks it necessary for Maths.

We don't set for the majority of subjects at my comprehensive and it works extremely well. We lead the county in progress and attainment for English and Maths for state schools and have done for the last couple of years since Maths followed English in moving away from sets.

It has no negative impact on our high learners. In my experience it depends on the way it is taught. We teach to the top, have high expectations of everyone, and use strategies to help everyone achieve. If you teach to the middle it doesn't really work, even with some extension tasks.

I teach English.
I don't notice a difference in pupil outcomes, but then i was a more able pupil myself so aim to avoud all the things I hated as a bright student like being a free TA

The biggest mixed ability range I taught was 5 (old) levels in one class! That was a challenging year but doable with careful planning and spending time thinking about how to structure learning. That was a rare group though. Usually mixed groups are 4-6/7 (old levels) / GCSE A*-C/D borderline.

For the current GCSE there's no tiers. I can see the merit in having small groups for those students who will struggle to access the paper (because it's now hideously non-inclusive) and would previously have been students who sat functional skills. Beyond that i don't find it makes much difference.

But my philosophy is to teach all classes the difficult stuff and vary the amount of help to get there. There's always the odd moaning parents but (this sounds awful) usually not indulging the silly nonsense and explaining how/why i do things is enough for them to settle. If all else fails I send the child home with their book and that's the last I hear from them.

What subject do you teach Maisy? (Just interested as you said MA has worked well.)