Any teachers here? Do mixed ability classes work?

SpoonsAndForks, could I please make a plea on behalf of the child at the top of the waiting list for your State option (there probably is one?), thaif you are going to give that place up, you let your LEA know very much sooner rather than later? Please don't be the parent who makes their decision known by virtue of their child just not arriving on the first day, by which time the child who gets that place will already have had their allocated school's new uniform bought, some of it now not returnable etc.

Of course, if you are going to drop the indie place, there may also be a 'hopeful' waiting there, as well...

Sppons,

It is difficult, because the actual intake of a secondary modern vs a comprehensive can be quite similar, or even reversed from what is 'expected', especially if the secondary modern is in an affluent leafy area, with only a few children going to grammar and the comprehensive is in an area which is poorer socio-economically and where educational aspiration in the community is low.

The easiest way to think about this is to think of 'academic ability' amongst the population of a specific age having a 'bell curve' normal distribution. Some of these bell curves will be skewed to the higher or to the lower end due to socio-economic factors.

In a true comprehensive area, the range of abilities of the intake will approximate pretty closely to this bell curve. Some children, predominantly at the lowest end, will attend Special Schools. Some affluent children, often skewed slightly to the upper end, will attend private schools. However, the children within the school will be of a full range of abilities.

In a grammar area, the populations of the grammar schools and the 'other' school [never now named 'X secondary modern school', because of the negative connotations, but in practice that is what they are] will differ markedly from the bell curve. In the 'other' school, removing those who pass the 11+ will produce a sharp drop in the numbers of higher ability children vs the bell curve. As the 11+ is notoriously imperfect at measuring actual ability, there will be a 'tail' of children towards the upper levels of ability, but there will be fewer than there are in the general population in that geographical area. Equally in the grammar school, the 'peak' of the distribution - ie the ability with the largest number of children - will occur at a higher ability than in the general population (how high depends on its selectivity - from top 25% in Kent to 2% or less in superselective areas). there will be a 'tail' of children with lower abilities, but it will fall off much more rapidly than in the general population.

A school in the same town as a grammar cannot, by definition, be comprehesive BUT it does depend hugely on how selective the grammar school is and the proportion of pupils who go there. m,any posters on previous threads have compared e.g. Cheltenham - 1 very highly selective grammar, several near-comprehensives - with Gloucester - 4 grammars, 1 faith school, a number of very obvious secondary moderns.

The issue really really isn't the make up of the classes : it is the school's culture, ethos, structures for support , behaviour and pastoral care , craeers advice and aspiration. Noe of these is linked to how they run the curriculum.

But , yes, if you have grammars it does rather suggets the other school's intake will be skewed.

Well, you seem not to take our word for it that many of us have experiences of schools where students strive to achieve. In fact, that seems commonplace these days. Almost to the extreme.

And I do feel the need to point out that if you have mixed ability you have clever children in every class. Fancy that!

In fact, ime, which is extensive , the not cool to work hard thing is not really about ability and I have only ever experienced negativity towards hard work in rigidly setted by ability situations.

No, the Grammar is in the next town over and few children here take the 11plus.
As I said very clearly I was talking about a specific school, which was the only non selective State option available to us

Just about to post what Piggy did - the other school is suyrely a secondary modern, since you talk of your child attending a grammar?

It was your automatic conflation of mixed ability / non grammar with 'not cool to be clever' that i objected to. Yes, there may be some schools - comprehensive, secondary modern, grammar, private - where it is not cool to be seen to work hard, to try, to strive to be the best. However the lazy 'it has mixed ability classes so it won't be cool to be clever there' stereotype is mildly irritating to those of us who know it's not the case everywhere...

But it sounds like you are in a grammar school area... not really a comp then?

cant I do certainly do but unfortunately the local comp IS such a school according to friends who have dcs there, some of the children themselves and a teacher friend who works there. A teacher from the comp who has a remit of encouraging more able pupils even told us we should try for Grammar.
Direct quote from one of DD’s friends “ I don’t want to be one of the bright kids anymore I want to be one of the cool kids so I’m not going to work as hard”
So while I agree some state Comps can and do encourage the most able the one available to us doesn’t.

SpoonsAndForks
It will depend on the schools. We have many parents tell us they are glad their child goes to our school because we offer a lot in line with local independents, but are a free state comprehensive. I'll be honest, I wouldn't pay fees if I could send my child to our school.

We can't offer the same social selection, but we do aim to support all children (including those at both ends of thr range) to achieve their potential. For some of our SEND students that means access to a vocational course with some life skills training at the end of y11, for our brightest then that is Oxford or Cambridge and other well respected courses.

We also teach in a mix of sets, mixed and loosely banded groups.

that is why my dd goes to a school where its ok to be clever and achieve and nobody gets called a “swot”for working hard rather than the school which has mixed ability classes

You do know those two aren't mutually exclusive, don't you?

My DCs go to a school where is is not just OK, but very highly valued, and 'cool', to be clever and achieve. Nobody gets called a 'swot'. AND they have mixed ability classes (for all subjects other than Maths in Y7, for a decreasing number of subjects for Y8 and Y9, and for all 'choice' subjects for GCSE - ie everything other than Maths. English and science)

You can have a school culture where it is seen as 'normal' to be clever, to work hard, to achieve to the absolute best of your ability (whatever that ability might be) whatever your approach to setting / mixed classes.

In fact, it may be easier to foster an attitude that it is cool to try hard and make the best of your ability in mixed classes, rather than in a strictly setted school, because a setted or streamed environment does send a signal to some that they are 'forever consigned to a lower middle set', and that rigid 'we have these expectations of you' may in fact be a barrier to expecting everyone to strive for the very best.

Holy that’s just bloody offensive
The most able pupils don’t their “egos taken down a peg”. ( which isn’t even a phrase). They need to be encouraged to achieve their potential, as do ALL pupils and for the most able it seems that mixed ability classes aren’t ten place to do that
Frankly Embittered shite like that is why my dd goes to a school where its ok to be clever and achieve and nobody gets called a “swot”for working hard rather than the school which has mixed ability classes

Returning briefly to the Oxbridge point:

What would be really interesting is analysis would be 'matched pairs' - ie pupils from the same type of family background in terms of income, jobs, and parental education, and from the same part of the country, so that as far as possible the only 'uncontrolled' factor affecting success was school sector - private or state.

There are of course factors other than sector that differentiate between different schools - money, educational backgrounds of teachers, tradition (and therefore 'knowledge of the process') - but at least a proper matched pair analysis would be better than the crude '50% of students at Oxbridge come from private schools so state schools must be failing' headlines.

Oxbridge is, of course, also failing - to attract state school pupils to apply, to see beyond careful expert preparation to true ability, to simplify their processes to make them as transparent and easy to navigate for schools / students unfamiliar with collegiate universities as possible. Interviewing is, unfortunately, a real barrier, though I can understand why it is done - a human is only too likely to select a student 'like the students we already have / like the student I was' rather than completely objectively.

Mixed ability all the way here.

The less able pupils need their confidence boosted and the more able pupils need their egos taken down a peg.

Having taught in both private and state secondaries, I have seen the difference. It's not about innate intelligence or even about teaching. It's about background, social and cultural capital, patental input and a sense of entitlement. By the time a child arrives at secondary, much of that is very very hard to change. If anything, the teachers at the (excellent and very high-achieving) private school I worked at were less hard-working, less committed and did much less to improve the kids' achievement than the teachers in any of the state schools I worked in. Why? Because they simply didn't need to. The kids were motuvated and eager to learn. They drove their achievement themselves.

So there you have it OP. Mixed ability classes are fine for the vast majority of kids. Those who are at the ends of the spectrum can and are catered for (despite the statistics saying they really aren’t).

It’s up to you now- what do you plan to do?

The children who go private have on average:

• richer parents
• more educated parents
• more involved / pro-education parents
• less SEN / behaviour problems

In grammar areas the bright kids from poor / chaotic homes might not even make it to grammar because they can't pay to tutor / don't realise until too late what the system is.

There is also I suspect some 'self-selection' going on. Private school kids assume it is their right to get into a good university, including Oxbridge. Someone from an inner-city comp may well think 'it's not for the likes of me'.

Additionally, if a state school gets £5k or similar per pupil per year, how can they be expected to achieve the same as one that gets £20k per pupil per year?

We've gone off the topic of mixed ability though.

You are not addressing my fundamental pointmaisy
Why are there only around 50% state educated kids getting into Oxbridge if the state sector is doing such a fabulous job looking after its G&T kids
So the massive list outlining all the complex factors leading to educational inequality doesn't answer your question at all? Right ok.

Educational inequality is complex. It is a range of factors including lots of social factors.

It's hard to break generations of underachievment. It's hard to get bright children to achieve when you're battling a literacy gap formed in the child's early years. That's my point. Private schools are disproportionately filled with children and parents who are socially advantaged with all the benefits that bestows.

If you want to kid yourself that the reason more state schools aren't in oxbridge is because state schools are crap with able children then there is absolutely no hope of a sensible discussion with you.

You are not addressing my fundamental point maisy

Why are there only around 50% state educated kids getting into Oxbridge if the state sector is doing such a fabulous job looking after its G&T kids

I realise this is a difficult question to answer. I don't think that better children go to independent schools at all - and nor have I suggested that. I've suggested that the state sector is letting bright kids down.

Who says that's why children are home educated? That's a bizarre and unfounded assertion!!

Your comment about state schools vs independents and Oxbridge was essenty insinuating that privately educated students are somehow smarter or tjat the state system is crap for anyone who isn't average.

By all means make whatever choice you need to for your child, but let's not be silly and suggest that there's somehow a fundamentally better type of child in independents.

I understand everything you are saying

But I am an individual parent, making decisions for my children

All the stuff you are saying about inequality is true without a doubt

But I am an individual parent making decisions for my children

And I'm not convinced the state system is catering for them. In fact everything on this thread has gone towards supporting my views. No triple science for example.

There is a sector of children that the state system cannot cater for. It works at both ends - vide the children that have to be home educated because they can't cope with mixed ability classes.

But what infuriates me is that there is a sector of children - not in the top 2% - but maybe in the top 3-10% whose choices are lessened, reduced, because their parents don't have the wherewithal. That's not good. And the same happens at the bottom end. Maybe we have to say that state education caters best for kids in the 10-90 deciles. those above and below suffer.

True

Ah but Piggy this is MN where someone always has a child who they say is a near genius and couldn't possibly manage in a normal.school because they are basically needing university material aged 11 and the teachers just can't possibly cater to anyone.

I have a degree in my subject but I'm in a state comprehensive so obviously I'm just ignoring years or higher study and give my bright kids colouring in and then use them as a TA to tell others how to colour in. It's probably because I'm terrified of bright children.