Any teachers here? Do mixed ability classes work?

there has actually been research done into this, as opposed to just opinion.
The research says that mixed ability teaching overall is BETTER, and gets higher results for ALL the children in the class. (I assume that is assumes decent teachers)

except for the top 10%
for those kids, it produces poorer results.
as mine are in the top 10%, they go to the grammar school.

Interestingly though, it is not clear whether if you remove the top 10%, whether or not the next 10%, who now become the top 10% now suffer as well. In other words, is it comparative, so the top layer, whatever their level, or is it absolute, so the top 10% of the wider cohort.

Personally i prefer the diamond approaching
one top set
lots of middle sets
one small support set

It can work if the teachers are very good.

It isn't great for the high ability students imo but good overall.

cantkeepawayforever

But I clearly stated that. Obviously, as a professional - and, in fact, as a person with a basically functioning brain - I recognise that different children have different needs, and that the same system that works for Child A isn't necessarily the best for Child B.

But I only have Child A to worry about from a personal perspective, so, as a parent, there is no conflict. It is only as a teacher that I have to balance competing interests in that particular way, isn't it?

Pengggwyn,

I;'m just surprised when a professional - in this case a teacher - states that she wants something different for her own child than she advocates in their professional capacity for the children of others.

I suppose that the problem I see with that kind of dichotomy is that a general parent would see that you were speaking with 'teacher authority / expertise' on a matter of education policy whereas actually you are just talking as a parent who would get their child the moon on a stick if they could.

French2019 I do wonder if setting could lead to less effective differentiation in some schools I think that is part of what has led to better progress and outcomes when we shifted away from Maths setting in my primary. Previously, there had been 'things we never taught bottom set', which one or two students may well have been able to handle, and 'top set doesn't need as much practice of the basics' whereas many children in that set did benefit from covering the basics well and revisiting them regularly. Non-setting has meant differentiating on a child by child, day by day basis which has often meant turning the 'established pecking order' upside down, rather than a 'this is bottom set, all they will manage is this' mental categorisation.

DD was in the top set at primary for everything but used to get stressed over the constant restreaming. Now she is going to a selective where there are no sets. Less stress...until GCSE at least

cantkeepawayforever

I think you are getting very confused because I said I would want X as a parent. Wanting doesn't mean getting. Obviously I would want my child to be in a situation where he or she was educated with clever, well-behaved children all the time, even if he or she was much less bright or able than they were. I would want them to be educated by a polymath private tutor with thirty years experience if I could get away with it! But it isn't happening. So, on average, I would be happier with a setting system if I had a bright child with a "non-spiky" academic profile, and I would be happier with a mixed ability system if I had a less able child. That's all I am saying, and I don't quite get why this has attracted your interrogative posts, to be honest.

So I guess that mixed ability teaching is a thing even in schools where setting is the norm, it's just that the range is slightly narrower.
I agree. There's always a range within classes, including sets.

Some schools also have disproportionately high intakes where 50% of the cohort were greater depth studentsat ks2 and sets 1-3 are all full of grade 7-9 students so it makes zero sense setting when you could have 3 broadly 7-9 classes.

Personally, I like loose grouping so you don't get outliers at either end in the sane class but there's some mix.

My teacher friends think they work well for less able pupils but not the high achievers
Dd is very academic and a friend who works at our catchment Secondary ( who is generally very positive about the school) said it wasn’t an ideal match for dd

I am very torn on this subject. Instinctively, I feel that mixed ability classes are probably better for the majority of children. I don't like labelling of any kind, and telling a child which set they are in instantly creates a label which may impact on motivation, self-perception, confidence etc.

At the same time, I remember being desperately bored in mixed ability classes when I was at secondary school. Sometimes we went painfully slow, and that too had the potential to impact on motivation and engagement etc.

My dd was set half way through year 7 for all subjects, including art, music, PE and drama. She is in top sets for everything except PE. She infinitely prefers being set for everything, including PE. However she was surprised to find that there is still a huge range of ability even within the top sets - even in maths where there are seven different groups! So I guess that mixed ability teaching is a thing even in schools where setting is the norm, it's just that the range is slightly narrower.

In light of this, I do wonder if setting could lead to less effective differentiation in some schools, because the kids are already set according to ability and the assumption is therefore that the pupils in any particular set are therefore working at a similar level of ability to one another. Perhaps in a truly mixed ability class, the teachers would be able to respond more to individual differences. However, that would presumably require a lot of extra work from the teacher.

Like I said, I'm torn. DD certainly prefers to be set, but I'm not convinced that she is necessarily stretched any more as a result of being set than she was in a mixed ability primary school class. As others have said, it could be the impact of behavioural issues as much as anything else. It's interesting to hear what teachers think.

We put our bottom set in for an entry-level exam, and our top set in for Further maths, and obviously maths is tiered so different exams there too.

I’ve heard some people say that mixed ability maths teaching in secondary is possible, but I’ve never seen it done well. It either involves kids mostly teaching themselves (SMP booklet style) or the teacher rushing around like a blue-arsed fly trying to teach 3 different lessons in one.

I agree with that but the top and middle sets become very large with setting.

Not all students in the bottom set have SEN and I am not sure I have ever really seen any child prosper by being in bottom sets of 12 - 15. They don't suddnely overachive : in fact, one could argue they are consigned to their fates. And In English, after all, they still need to do the same --ridiculously inaccessible- exams!

The major thing is having access to staff who can teach in a range of settings well.

I enjoy teaching lower sets and tend to get rid of poor behaviour quickly, but as an A Level teacher with good top end knowledge I often find myself in higher ability groups to stretch.
At a previous school there were a few of us who were strong, and a revolving door of Teach Firsts who were non specialists & cover staff. Do you put your strong teachers in top set to stretch the top, or the bottom to close the gap whislt battling behaviour? Someone ends uo not getting the strong subject specialist.

That's the reality of some schools.

Then there's schools like mine who could do setting or mixed and do it well because we have an excellent strong team.

That would require extra teachers, piggy, and extra teachers aren’t going to happen in the current climate.

If you have two classes and 40 kids, you could have a top set of 30 and a bottom set of 10 - average class size 20.
Or you could have two MA classes of 20.

The kid with SEN in the bottom set has just seen their class size double, although average class size stays the same.

Secondary teacher of ten years here. In my experience no, they don’t.

And I am curious noble as one of the by porducts of MA classes is often smaller, not larger, average class sizes?

And talking of TAs, you can forget any TA support in our school in a setted subject unless you have a child with an EHCP or the bottom sets.. so some students who would benefit lose out. We got rid of MA classes partly so TA support could be 'targeted' (ie money could be saved...) I have just had to move a boy witha target grade of 5 into a bottom set so he could get the TA support he sorely needs. That is ridiculous.

I agree sadi that it is a difference betwen subjects. Most maths teachers are pro setting. i do find amongst NQTs and RQTs these days a rhetoric of fear around mixed abiliyt teaching, often informed by their own school experinces in high sets where they had inculcated into them a superiority over and fear of lower sets. Not healthy!

I do think the voices of those on this thread who teach both at secondary level should be listened to! I can assure all of you, my three exceedingly able students in my MA class are flourishing, are not bored and enjoy their lessons. Honest.

This may also be coloured by the fact that I am not keen on my top set year 10 (all girls ... there are also gender issues with setting) becuase they come across as rather conceited and not half as good as thye think they are: thye seem less prepared to put in the hard yards. Hey ho.

teen I am not convinced behaviour is worst in the very lowest sets (although it can be becuase fo a range of SEN issues) but that it can be highly disruptive in middle sets , populated with underachievers. I suppose if I was in charge of setting , I would trace the data back to a much earlier date, rather than look at their most recent educational outcomes. But our kids are obsessed with setting and see the whole thing as self fulfilling prophecy. They always ask what set they are in and I always try to dodge the question. What happens if I say set 6? And why are they so desperate to know??Even in our set 6 we have target grades of 3 - 5, so it's hardly a fine art!

I think it depends on the school.

I was taught in mixed ability groups and hated it. I was bored out of my mind. Which has probably influenced my outlook.

As a teacher I'd say they can work but it's much harder to get it right and I find it benefits the middle and bottom rather than the top. A good school and good teachers will make any system work. So if your option is a good school I wouldn't worry to much. I find the culture of a school is really significant. Is this somewhere students are happy to show the enthusiasm they have for learning?

If my child was genuinely in the very top end of the ability range o would be more inclined to go for a school with sets though.

Teentimestwo - in Primary we call these the 'critical' children - as in it is critically important that those pupils willing and able to work hard get that extra provision to help them catch up. I'm an intervention teacher so my job is to teach groups of 12 or so pupils who are below age-related attainment but perhaps have the potential to become what we call 'At'. It is hugely satisfying to see these hard-working students flourish in a small, focused group. A good secondary school should continue to provide such interventions.

Going back to the original post, setting just in Maths and English in year 7 sounds about right (as well as being the norm). Setting in Science happens anyway in year 10 with the options of core or triple science. As this thread has pointed out, children can benefit in more rounded ways from at least having some mixed ability classes.

I think if I'd had the choice, I'd have sent dd to a school that set for maths & PE, but was mixed ability elsewhere . . .

cant should say about primary maths - I’m sure you teach mixed-ability maths very well, and that bright kids aren’t thumb-twiddling in your lessons, but my comment was a response to piggy who couldn’t understand why people might think that their bright child is being held back.

If their kid had the experience of a mixed-ability class not taught as you do, rather taught to the middle, then it could definitely feel like that.

cantkeepawayforever

Sorry, can't. I am out for the day now. I will reply later.

No child should be held back by disruptive behaviour.

Arguing that low sets are badly behaved is a point in favour of effective and strict behaviour management systems, not an argument against setting.

I was talking to an English teacher whose school had moved to mixed ability teaching (it’s obviously fashionable at the moment). They commented that previously they could assign a TA to the lowest set, which would be the smallest group, and do lots of focused intervention. Now they have a swathe of mixed-ability classes, the classes are much bigger, and the TA instead of being assigned to one class and getting to know them well is being assigned here there and everywhere for patches of support. It didn’t sound great for those kids.

Is the difference between maths (Noble) and English (Piggy)? I've got a dd who was very good at science, maths and English lit.

Although her school did set for maths & English, it's very small, so still had a wide ability range within each class. (Science somewhat set by default in that only those liking science took triple to GCSE)

The 'most set' was maths, with a small group of 12 high achievers pulled out separately. Yet that was the only subject where dd always complained about being bored, consistently got 100% on tests (and got a lot of grief for fiddling, staring out the window, reading under the table etc). IME it's always maths that seems to be the difficult one, in that a question is right or wrong - unlike even science where you can understand a subject to greater or lesser depth (or English where the same question can be answered at primary or PhD level it sometimes seems!)