Any teachers here? Do mixed ability classes work?

what about in schools where there are a good number or lots of teachers who are new, inexperienced or simply not 'on it' enough to make this a reality....what then?

I think this is an issue whatever the model used.

If such teachers are deployed to teach top sets (always supposing those top sets are also compliant, which is not necessarily the case) and the remaining 'experienced, on it teachers' used to teach the lower sets where children alienated from learning and thus disruptive are more common, do the top sets get the benefit from setting? Would I, for my very able compliant DD, settle for a weaker teacher in this scenario?

Or are such teachers deployed to teach lower sets because 'they don't matter so much'? That is a way to guarantee the pupils who need most help get the least, and is particularly unfair to lower middle ability children who are compliant and want to learn.

Or do the schools stick with mixed ability in most subjects, and make certain that the overall school systems support high standards of behaviour and learning, rather than replying just on the teacher in front of the classroom?

As I say, DC'school sets in Y10 and 11 for core subjects only, and the naturally greater engagement of pupils with subjects they have chosen (as well as really robust systems throughout the school) seems to ensure that the mixed ability groupings for these subjects work really well.

Whichever school you choose - they might change the system they use partly or wholly - so as a parent you can never be sure that what you think you're opting into, is what will still be there in 3 or ads or across the curriculum.

I have heard of local state schools introducing setting across most of the curriculum from September, following a disappointing Ofsted. I have also heard of schools aiming for more mixed ability teaching partly to deal with funding issues - by running missed ability, they have been able to reduce from 10 to 9 classes per year in those subjects which were previously setted, because they no longer have those smaller bottom sets, but somehow, the larger size of the higher sets doesn't seem to have disappeared!

I don't think your choice is particularly about state/independent. Lots of Independents don't go in for much setting - either because the schools are small or even in the very high performing ones, simply because the range is far less and it's not needed, expect in perhaps Maths. Most parents choosing those top Independnet schools wouldn't reject them because of the lack of setting - so that suggests it's not really the issue. Isn't the issue about receiving quality teaching and making excellent progress?

Quality teaching and excellent progress happens in lots of independent schools and it also happens in some classrooms in most state schools to varying degrees. The problem is simply that it's not widespread enough and not all classrooms are experiencing it. If you have a choice, you choose the place where you think your child will get the most experience of that quality teaching and excellent progress.....that's as a parent.

Schools which know they have a limited number of quality teachers who can deliver excellent progress have to decide how to deploy them - through mixed ability or setted teaching, but the bottom line is that if there aren't enough great teachers, not everyone will make excellent progress, no matter what system is used.

OP , you do still have sets for En/Maths and your school may also change its mind, I guess. It is quite standard only to set in En/ Ma (and often science) in lower secondary. I think it'll be fine

Thanks OP .

I am speaking in plain English. I note you haven't picked up on cant who is also using the langauge of pedagogy. Not sure if I am allowed to use that word.

I use that language autmoatically when posting in a specilaised thread, which is what a secondary education thread is.

Actually, teaching doesn't have CVs, so there would be no need to be turned off by me. But I can assure you, teaching is stuffed full of people who speak way more jargon than I do. diet is hardly jargon, nor is it corporate, to my knowledge.

I don't think I am biased. After 25 years of teaching , I think I have genuine insights to offer. And OP hasn't said otherwise. I am wondering what your credentials are to offer insights, since OP asks in her first sentence for teacher input?

I don't agree with lots of teachers on ability setting. That's fine with me. Always up for a debate : just not sure why you have so taken against me. It is not bias if it is based on experience!

It's all very well talking about what would be best in an ideal world, but as has been said earlier in this thread, many schools are in crisis regarding teacher recruitment and having to rely on large numbers of less than ideal teachers. Increasingly schools have larger numbers of inesperuenced teachers and a bigger turnover of staff and with the morale crisis and funding problem, these issues look like getting worse.

I know we want to be idealists in education - and it's right that we should be, but we also have to be realists - so given that providing for al effectively in mixed ability classrooms requires more skill and. I lit than many teachers have got or are likely to have in the near future, what is the best way forward for the resources currently available? Lots of people here have said mixed ability is better with skilled, able teachers who are 'on it' that day and therefore don't have to waste much time on behaviour management, but what about in schools where there are a good number or lots of teachers who are new, inexperienced or simply not 'on it' enough to make this a reality....what then? Because sadly, this is the case in many schools.

piggy If your CV is full of phrases that give teachers a bad name because they are trying to mimic corporate speak, a lot of which is also ridiculous, it wouldn’t get more than one read.

You sound like you do not know what you are talking about, parroting phrases that you think make you sound knowledgeable. They don’t, they truly don’t.

Speak in plain English and you may be taken seriously, although your biased attitude sticks out a mile.

I am a teacher and yes they do. In fact I feel so strongly about this I'm currently doing an MA dissertation on the topic. Mixed ability groups enable children to learn from each other, try challenges and to not suffer from a label. I've been looking at this in maths and children who would have been put in the 'bottom' group are now trying challenges because they feel more confident in their learning.

You really must be a bit bored planet.

oh DFOD

Amongst the most relevant, yes. I can't see why that is an incorrect statement. Do you require my CV?

“Massaging of groups” 😂

God help us all!

Bloody hell! You are actually saying you have the most relevant experience of everyone on the thread?!

Yes, I'd like to see a lot more massaging of groupings , taking into account the humans involved and not just their attainment.Definitely.

Piggy, what i thought was interesting was that they did it in setted subjects, as well as mixed ability ones.

So DD's top set had a ringleader whose native intelligence was normally wholly directed towards disruption, and whose attainment was therefore low. With support - and without anyone to distract, as that particular top set was also compliant - they did well, and the experience of the top set was basically unaffected.

cant that is precisely what we used to do when we had mixed ability groupings in English at my school. Now, Data Is King. Our data manager puts together the sets.

The most relevant on the thread.Obviously.

I should say 'amongst the most relevant' perhaps.

We have already established OP's school sets for maths and English, which is the norm. I teach mixed ability at the moment, in a comprehensive school; and I also teach classes in sets.

I fail to grasp what your beef is with me, other than that you don't agree with me?

“depsite me having the msot relevant and up to date experience of BOTH systems AT THE SAME TIME“

Huh? The MOST relevant of whom?

Of everyone who has commented on the thread? Or the whole world?!

cath , i do think it depends on a) the subject and b) how exam focused and target driven one's teaching beliefs and culture are. And I mean no offence by that.

I teach discussion type subjects and also ones that require high levels of literacy for success. I have a lovely set 7 (of 8) . Their behaviour is good , they are nice students, but they drift and are hard to keep on task. I honestly believe there are many of them who would achieve better with a range of students, including the more able. I also teach a set 6, who are vile (well, the point is they aren't : the critical mass is anti learning), a set 1 , who are arrogant and also anxious, and two mixed ability groups who make my day each and every time I see them.

As further evidence , I would say a 2017 Ofsted visited a mixed ability class of mine and the set 7. They heaped praise on the progress of all learners (sorry , a barf word, but their word) and their engagement in the mixed ability group. They were less positive about what went on in the set 7 lesson: I think I have settled for manners , not causing too much trouble and scraping by for the set 7. It certainly made me reflect.

I teach science in mixed ability sets. It's ok for the middle but I always feeling I'm failing the brightest and least able. You have to teach to the middle and hope you can stretch the more able and pull the least along. Especially now with the increased level of maths. I'm rearranging complex equations in the same class as kids that can't multiply by ten. They feel lost and disillusioned and their behaviour shows it. In the meantime the brightest might have only needed 5 minutes on something I'm spending a few lessons on....

Don't like it

I am not being silly. My experience as a teacher has been routinely dismissed on this thread,actually, depsite me having the msot relevant and up to date experience of BOTH systems AT THE SAME TIME. And despite me being one of the targte audience of the OP's OP.

A diet of different experiences implies they will get bits of different things all at the same time. Different experiences implies students get different experiences from each other.

Who are we ??
Barf.

I have only ever taught set classes from yr 8 on, so it is interesting to read the experience of teachers who teach mixed sets. I’ve got a smallish (20) set of kids who are set 4 of 6 doing double science. They find the subject hard and their self esteem about their progress and ability in GCSEs generally is very fragile. The literacy level is low and the number of students who qualify for support in exams is high. This shapes how I teach all of them in terms of support given with written materials and I can genuinely enthuse in class about progress that against more able kids would look underwhelming. Stopping them throwing their hands up and saying ‘I can’t it’s too hard’ is going to be a major factor in whether I can get them through the exam. I feel that with a few exceptions a mixed ability class would risk leaving a significant number of them behind completely. Then I read teachers on here talking about how it works and doubt myself!

DD's school had an interesting trial in lower years whereby potential ringleaders of disruption were placed, sometimes with support, 1 by 1 in all sets, regardless of their displayed attainment, thereby pro-actively avoiding the potential concentration of disruptive children in specific ability groups.

It was, by all accounts, very successful for the 'receiving' sets and for the sets from which those pupils were removed.

I suppose the question is whether, in today's schools, there genuinely are a large number where pupils mess around and disrupt others, and whether, again today, that is more prevalent in mixed ability classes or in sets?

Or do sets mean that some classes are disrupted much more while others are disrupted much less, and is that fair to the hard-working children of any ability? (Obviously you will like it if your child is disrupted less - but what if only 10% of children are disrupted less, and 90% disrupted more - do we sacrifice the 90% for the benefit of the 10%?)