Any teachers here? Do mixed ability classes work?

There's a huge weight of evidence behind mixed attainment teaching as beneficial for overall progress. Setting, if you are one of the pupils in a high attaining set, feels lovely and HA pupils benefit from the self-fulfilling prophecy of high expectations and well-established work ethic; for the vast majority of other pupils, including HA pupils who believe they are 'not good enough to be in the top set', it's largely detrimental.

Teaching mixed attainment requires better teaching. If the school is in the process of moving from one model to another, it's likely that they will be running lots of training and focusing on improving pedagogy. That's a good thing.

I did quite a lot of research on this when my daughter went to a mixed ability school. The findings show that everyone except the very very brightest are better off with mixed.

Mixed ability can work, but it's very hard work for the teacher. I prefer to teach sets. I'm an mfl teacher and have not really taught classes where there have been properly two years' difference in experience between pupils. Even if some have learnt the language at primary and others haven't (usually because they learnt a different language), they usually learnt such a limited amount at primary that it doesn't much matter. Even when I was at school and had done no French at primary, I caught up very quickly with the prep school kids who had done it for years.

I was educated in a mixed ability state school and achieved very highly (all A*s at GCSE) so it absolutely can and does get the results for the top end students.

I am a teacher and prefer mixed ability classes. Yes, planning does take longer with more differentiation but imo it works well for pupils on every level.

I currently teach in a school where the pupils are set. It works very well for bottom sets where classes are very small (around 10-15). It works ok for top sets who have much larger classes (32/33) but are challenged, work at a fast pace etc. It does not work for the average middle set child. Middle sets are unmotivated, plagued by constant low level bad behaviour, often dislike school and ime often struggle to meet their targets. It also doesn't work for the hard-working but not naturally bright child who is able to just about keep in the top set at key stage 3 but can't cope with the increased workload/difficulty at GCSE and is moved down into the more problematic middle set.

There is so much heartache over setting and a real stigma attached to being moved down. I personally would rather my child be educated in a mixed ability setting.

Are these like composite classes with multiple year levels in one class? I was in one for a few years in (private) primary school and it worked very well. One with three year levels and one with two.

I think behaviour is slightly better (in my experience) in mixed ability groupings - some schools (not all) use the bottom set for behaviour problem students who often play up even more then they would in a top set due to boredom / lack of challenge. Mixed ability done well (so with an even spread of ability / girls and boys / behaviour needs ) are some of my favourite groups to teach

I think taking the children with the poorest literary and numeracy levels from the main feeder primary schools who often (but not always) have erratic attendance, unsupportive homes and chaotic lives and putting them in a room together at secondary is a recipe for disaster.

I think they are great for slightly lower ability students who benefit from hearing responses / better use of academic language and so on but I would worry about the progress of a higher ability student being limited.

I think they do, but I’ll be shot down ...