Any teachers here? Do mixed ability classes work?

It's what we do in primary maths

Not according to my primary DS, who is the one making this complaint. He also didn’t say half an hour, he said that they spend days on a topic. Sure he gets given extension work, but on the same topic, rather than a fast-paced curriculum.
I know how much longer it takes a bottom set to grasp a new concept than a top set, and how much more of the curriculum a top set covers (its why we still have tiers in maths).

Piggy And, no, I am not saying the less able behave worse. They are less inclined to value the subject, though, as they feel they are 'failing' and bring with them a range of fairly negative attitudes. But I feel like no one cares about the grade 3 - 5 students (shortsightedly!) and whoever said parents only like setting when they have their DCs in the top set hit the nail on the head!

I'm the parent of a grade 3-5 child. I am broadly in favour of setting, in that, my DD seems happier in set subjects than mixed ability ones, and her confidence has grown since being out of a mixed ability primary class. But I am happy to accept that in a school that does mixed ability for more subjects well she would be fine.

However, what concerns me about these discussions (and the discussions about grammars) is the overwhelming assumption / acceptance / resignation that behaviour in lower sets will be worse. My DD needs, if anything, better behaved classes to help her concentrate and reduce stress levels.

A number of the arguments in favour of sets seems to be 'my bright child shouldn't be held back by disruptive behaviour'. But why should my hard working but less academic have her education disrupted by it?

Perhaps children shouldn't be set by ability, but instead set by effort? So mixed ability classes, but top set are hard working go extra mile types, set 2 & 3 well behaved do as asked, set 4 lazy / disruptive.

It's one of the reasons we always mark overnight - so we can teach efficiently the following morning and not delay those who could just get on the next morning.

Sorry, not 'bad' classroom management. Just a model which is alien to me as a primary teacher who teaches mixed ability in all subjects.

But that's bad classroom organisation, surely? Why can't the bright child get on? It's what we do in primary maths: teach, show me on a whiteboard, go and do if you've got it, stay with me / a TA if you haven't, rinse and repeat.

Piggy I guess it’s because when the bright child has grasped a concept by the teacher going through an example on the board and then has to sit through another half hour of explanation, it can feel like a waste of their time?

I am actually really cross at the constant assertion that bright children are 'held back' by less able peers. This is insulting on so many levels , I don't know where to begin!!

I might also add, setting creates such anxiety! As we can see on this thread! From parents, from children, from teachers! Top set students cna become very very anxious. I have not noticed this so much from the most able in my mixed ability classes : not such a hothouse effect, I suppose and they feel more secure and confident in their ability and lear to see the world is made up of people of many differing abilities. It is quite powerful for a very anxious and very able girls I teach to see how fantastic she is. She feels, conversely, that she can never be good enough in ehr top set English. She has no intention of following English at A level because she thinks it is too stressful, too competitive , and too hard. Her words. she is predicted an 8/9 in bothe Englishes and my subject.

Anotehr girl I teacch, her mum was emailing the day after new sets came out believing her DD had been 'relegated' to set 2. (she hadn't). it was like the apocalypse had arrived.

And another gril in a set 6 I teach (of 10) had a panic attack in a lesson, due to the misbehaviour of other students and my haranguing of them. It overwhelmed her. She missed two weeks of school. That class should ahve been diluted and would ahve been without rigid setting. Instead, she has two years more of them to out up with. the make up of that class is a direct consequence of setting. And, no, I am not saying the less able behave worse. They are less inclined to value the subject, though, as they feel they are 'failing'and bring with them a range of fairly negative attitudes. But I feel like no one cares about the garde 3 - 5 students (shortsightedly!) and whoever said parents only like setting when they have their DCs in the top set hit the nail on the head!

DS2 thinks setting is a great idea. Humbug

I genuinely don't understand your point - or rather, it seems to me to be ultimately contradictory.

You are saying that for a child who is very good at a specific subject [I presume that is what you meant by 'bright children', because as you have agreed, children do not tend to be equally bright across all subjects] you believe being in a top set is beneficial.

However, you have also said that for all children NOT in a top set, mixed ability is better (ie setting is detrimental).

So what you want for your child is for there to be a top set available to them in their areas of strength BUT if they are not in that magic 32 children, you want mixed ability teaching, because you don't want them to be disadvantaged?

You also want them to be able to swap between the two systems (or rather, you want to be able to make the choice for them to swap between the two systems) whenever you make the parental judgement that the system they are in is, on balance, not beneficial to them?

However, you now admit that this is impossible in practical terms??

cantkeepawayforever

What you want for your DC is your decision. Obviously what you can get is what you can get, isn't it?

It can't be a parental decision - at least unless a parent has a choice of setted and non-setted secondary schools, which locally is rare because of over-subscription.

I can't say 'I want DS to not be setted, but DD to be setted', because they attend the only school they are in catchment for.... that's not a choice i have available to me?

In my personal experience if your child is high achieving avoid mixed ability classes, they will be bored and/or bullied.

I agree entirely with pengggwan, mixed ability may well be the 'moral' thing to do for all children but as a parent I want the right school and education for my DC and I believe very strongly in setting, grammar schools etc. It's about finding the right school for your DC, for some DC that might be the school with excellent support for SEN pupils, for other DC it might be the one with excellent sports facilities etc etc. Differences should be recognised and made the most of, not ignored in the aim of mediocrity.

I'm surprised that a number of posters think it's normal to find lessons too easy at taster days - that to me would be an indication that they teach to the middle/bottom of the class and would concern me for my DC.

OP what about other things, what does the state school offer in terms of science for example - do they do the separate sciences? If it's only double award (which sounds quite likely if they don't set) then along with the setting issue I would definitely stick with the private school (assuming you can afford it).

So you think it would be fine for (spiky) DS to be distracted and held back by the less bright in his weaker subjects, because he would not be distracted and held back in his stronger ones??

I made no statement of the kind. I said that is a subjective, parental decision.

cantkeepawayforever

Where did I say bright children were 'uniformly bright across the board'? Obviously some children are better at some subjects than others.

It does seem really odd that you, as a teacher, believe all bright children to be 'uniformly bright across the board'. As a primary teacher who teaches all children all subjects, I would say that is rather rarer than the reverse.

Pengggwyn,

So you think it would be fine for (spiky) DS to be distracted and held back by the less bright in his weaker subjects, because he would not be distracted and held back in his stronger ones??

As a parent, I love it that mixed ability teaching in many subjects throughout secondary, with only the core 3 (Maths, English, Science) in sets has acually meant that his spiky profile has smoothed out without noticeably sacrificing performance in his 'high ability' subjects. His best marks were mostly in non-set subjects, and I would NOT have predicted that for him at 11.

MaisyPops

Exactly. It's like the old adage that Americans don't worry about the poor because they all think, one day, they will be rich. Parents are hard-wired to imagine their child to be bright, and therefore to believe, when their child is young, that they will one day be in top sets. When their child starts to struggle, they start to think setting might be unfair on said children. It's completely understandable!

Bright kids do better when they’re grouped together and not distracted or held back by the less bright

Yup, I think they do. As a teacher, however, I have to support what is best for more children. As a parent I would be

Penggwyn,

Which is subjective? Your assertion that the bright child will do better in high sets is objective, but my contention that that comes at their expense if they are in low sets in another subject is subjective?

(It's obviously clearer if it is a single spiky child. It is perhaps more usual that the advantage works for the more able children, the disadvantage for the less able...)

I find it interesting that, locally, Progress8 was highest for the most able in the comprehensive which sets least, and lowest in some of the grammars..they did even out a bit last year, when Proghress8 was rigged to favour progress of the most able by there being higher 'steps' between the grades at higher levels. Will be interesting to see what happens this year, when the steps are all equalised again by numerical grades.

Pengggwn
It's a valid question.
When people sing the praises of setting it is almost always because:

1. Their child will be in the 'right' type of groups, away from children who the parents wouldn't want in their child's class
2. The school offers specialist support for struggling students in a smaller nurture group setting and that suits their child's needs

Nobody ever says 'I love setting. I have an average middle ability child who is hard working but finds English tough. What I really want for them is to go into a lower set of 28 where half the class are struggling but hardworking and the other half are the students who have been persistently disruptive throughout ks3 and now are in a lower group. I love the idea of my child being in a class where they might have a strong teacher, but they might not. If they have a strong teacher then the teacher will maintain order in the classroom but still have to spend too much time dragging the disruptive and disaffected through at the expense of others who could really do with the help. If they get a middling to weaker teacher then it's half a lesson lost each day trying to crowd control poor behaviour. But i don't mind. It's important that the bright children don't have to mix with the likes of my DC'.

I agree with Pengggwyn. Mixed ability classes benefit the least able to the detriment of the most able. Everyone is dragged up/down to average. As a teacher you end up focusing your efforts on those who most need help and ignoring the capable students because they can achieve an acceptable result without your help. Bright kids do better when they’re grouped together and not distracted or held back by the less bright.

Pengggwn BUT if the consequence of your child being in a set for their high ability in their high ability subject meant that they were in a low ability set - with perhaps attendant disruption, concentration of demotivated children or those from chaotic homes - in their low ability subjects, is the perceived 'positive' impact of the high sets worth the attendant negative effect in their low ability subjects

That is a wholly subjective judgements and dependent on the individual child.

'As a teacher, I will tell you that mixed ability benefits the students overall and, because it tends to benefit the students who are already disadvantaged by lower ability and - linked to that - social disadvantage, it is the moral thing to do.'

I applaud this. The ethos of state schools is less about pupils competing with each other and more about them accommodating each other. The true satisfaction of my job is seeing the children understand and support each other and ultimately learn to get along with people from all walks of life. This has given my own kids a kind of social confidence that can't be gained by top grades. An able child will do well in any school. Send your child to the state school and in year 11 if his grades aren't what you had hoped, you could always get him a private tutor.

Pengggwn BUT if the consequence of your child being in a set for their high ability in their high ability subject meant that they were in a low ability set - with perhaps attendant disruption, concentration of demotivated children or those from chaotic homes - in their low ability subjects, is the perceived 'positive' impact of the high sets worth the attendant negative effect in their low ability subjects?

(See previous posts on grammar schools - their perceived 'success' is always at the expense of those in the secondary moderns)

Teach to the top and support those who need it works well.
This is how I teach mixed ability and it works well (still don't like 2-9 GCSE classes. I think a loose grouping is better at KS4)

I don't like mixed ability when it's 'pitch to the middle, then give lower ability a yellow worksheet and a list of sentence starters and then give the more able students an orange sheet'.
Aim high for all and provide support for those who need it (but be prepared that some bright students who are used to the idea of being on the golden table at primary will hate this because it doesn't make it obvious to the whole class who the 'smart' children are.) I've had able students feed back that they didn't like everyone doing thr same work. It was a challenging literary essay that could have been given to Y11.

Some children, and parents, are fixated on this idea of the status of 'being seen to be smart'. It's a very fixed mindset where it's all about having the right set number on your timetable, being seen to sit at the top table in class, being seen to finish work early, being seen to have the difficult worksheet, being seen to get 100%. Those children tend to lack resilience, can't cope with failure, tend to blame the teacher if they don't get 100% because obviously they are bright so if they didn't get high marks it's the teacher's fault. The parent will come to parents' evening and want to know less about their child's talents and weaknesses and more about where they sit in the class and how they compare to their peers.

The reality is that learning should be a challenge, a classroom that is so overtly differentiated creates a hierarchy of ability which can demoralize and lower expectations for some, a child shouldn't be getting 100% all the time because if they are the work is too easy.

Not all higher ability students are like that, but it's a trend among highly able students.