To think state schools should do more to push academic pupils?

[PickleM]

I've worked in both state and private schools. My observation with my own dc (in state schools) is that those who are very able academically could be given better opportunity to excel, but aren't. I see it as a great shame.

It seems like in order to tick the 'inclusive' box or help those who need more support, the children who are more capable aren't really given very challenging work.

An example would be that my dd is put in a very mixed ability group for maths and English. However, previously the class had different tables depending on level of work - those most able were given more challenging work. Those less able were given less challenging work. I've now been told by the teacher that this wasn't 'inclusive' enough for the slt. Apparently my dc is learning through 'coaching others'. I think she should give a higher level of work to those most able, I'm not interested in my dc 'coaching others' when she could be learning more complex work.

Private schools seem to have no issue with streaming children. Perhaps I've just been unlucky, ultimately it doesn't matter as I help my children learn at home, but what about capable children who don't have home support?

Depends on the state school. One of my daughters is generally working above her targets and they do take a small group of those children for more challenging work with the headteacher once a week. On the other end of the spectrum they support those struggling with extra activities but I’m grateful that they go to a state school in a good area so think that makes a difference I know they are not all the same!

That attitude is the reason DD is at an all girls grammar and on track to get excellent A level results in stem. The local comp just wouldn't have helped her achieve her full potential.

A - "Mixed ability grouping has been proven to have a positive impact on lower attainers but no detrimental impact on higher attainers." - based on what? And how have they determined "no detrimental effect " as that could be just mean "meets expectations " it may not measure lost opportunity to excel and strive beyond meeting expectations.

B - agree.with pp re harm where there are behavioural issues. In a Jordan Peterson interview recently he noted that where "Well behaved" children are placed with disruptive children they themselves become disruptive rather than the disruptive child being positively impacted.

My dds achieved top marks without streaming or doing extra work. You're panicking unnecessarily, bright children do well in state schools. And when they get to uni they tend to do better than private school pupils cos they're less hothoused and spoon fed.

The local comp just wouldn't have helped her achieve her full potential.

What a shame that is the case at your particular local school - though I would question whether, in the presence of a grammar school, a school can be comprehensive, as it is by definition missing some of the cohort's higher attainers?

Confusingly, 'other' schools in grammar areas ARE colloquially referred to as comprehensives, while be definition being anything but comprehensive in their intake.

DD's mixed cohort at our local comprehensive did very well in STEM - 3-4 As / A*s was not uncommon. It's not a sector wider issue (and worth noting, btw, that the OP was so worded as to imply that grammar schools, as state schools, also didn't cater well to able pupils and only private schools could do so.....).

When I was a student teacher I was shocked by the attitudes towards the brightest students. They were safely going to “do well” ie at least 5 A-C grades so the focus was on the less able.

Then this would be obvious in their Progress 8 and would be slated by Ofsted.

@cantkeepawayforever

"Are you really saying that every primary school in the country fails children because they (necessarily) teach mixed ability classes??"

Actually the op said that they were already successfully teaching a mixed ability class with streamed tables which allowed the teacher to stretch the more able dc and assist those that needed it, however the slt felt that this was not inclusive and now they mic up the tables and the brighter dc are no longer stretched and are now expected to help teach the less able dc.

"But it negatively impacts the lower attaining children. What about their social mobility?"
They aren't going to have any social mobility, streaming or otherwise.

"Streaming is a really bad idea for children that are good in some subjects and not so good in others - they are bound to be in the "wrong" stream at least some of the time."
Every subject should be streamed. Some kids will be in the top stream for Maths, and a lower stream for English, for instance, some in the top streams for everything, some in the lower streams for everything.

There’s a real lack of understanding about what mixed ability means and the pedagogy behind it from some posters.
It’s perfectly possible to give 30 students the same task and then ensure every student is challenged. For example, if you were teaching a Y7 history class about the Battle of Hastings, your task might be to ‘Explain why Harold lost’. A lower ability child might need starter sentences to say that he lost because he was hit in the eye with an arrow. Whereas at the other end, a more able student would be able to independently write 500+ words, discussing a range of factors (just fought off HH in the North, tactical errors on Senlac Hill etc) and might even question why we think he got an arrow in the eye, and did this actually ever happen, how credible is the Bayeux Tapestry as a source! Really bright children are able to work out how to extend the task and challenge themselves so aren’t sitting there with nothing to do, claiming to have finished. Same in maths; a really bright child will be able to demonstrate multiple ways to find a solution.
We also have a system where Ofsted/league tables etc mean that there is a lot of ‘teaching to the test’. The pressure to get students through exams is enormous and means teachers focus on exam content, rather than going off at a tangent, if there is no potential to increase the child’s grade.
Finally, state schools are grossly underfunded, and teachers are leaving the profession in droves. Interestingly though, with many private schools leaving the TPS, they’re finding recruitment just as hard as state schools

The local comp is in our home town, the grammar is a 40min bus journey so no, it's not affected by the few local students who go to this grammar (though there are three others in the wider area).

The comp isn't a bad school, but bright girls interested in stem don't do well in mainstream mixed which was one reason. They have a reputation for bullying which was another. I've never regretted the decision and DD has a lovely friendship group. I just wish the entire education system was revamped and funded properly from the bottom up.

But streamed tables is TERRIBLE practice. It's really obvious why.

Scenario A: The teacher has prepared basic, core and extension work. They have already decided, before the lesson is taught, that a fixed number of children, who sit at a particular table of a fixed size, will get the basic work, and that a similarly fixed number get the extension work. Similarly, a fixed number of children get the support of an adult sat at the tale they always sit at, and a fixed number get to access the practical resources that can help to support them with today's work.

Scenario B: The teacher has, similarly, prepared basic, core and extension work. They teach the core work to the whole class. As children are noted to find it difficult, an adult move to them, or they move to an adult, who can provide them with extra support. Similarly, a few children choose to use the practical materials that are on everyone's tables. The teacher swiftly evaluates who, if anyone, needs the basic work, and provides that if needed, as an entry point that then moves on to the core work. The rest of the class start the core work, with those who grasp the concept quickly - as identified during the teaching phase as well as during independent work - access the extension. All or most of the class may end up completing the extension work, or a few. Many, a few or no children may need the basic work.

It is the pre-determination of fixed ability tables that is poor, not the ability for children who need it to access work at the level they need it.

Every subject should be streamed. Some kids will be in the top stream for Maths, and a lower stream for English, for instance, some in the top streams for everything, some in the lower streams for everything

That's called 'setting'. Your use of the word 'streaming' instead is misleading.

I’m not sure I agree with full streaming where children are considered to either be high, middle or lower ability across all subjects, but setting for individual subjects is a must to enable all children to achieve their potential IMO.

The state secondary my children went to had 4 sets for English, 6 for maths and 2 for sciences and languages. The one that excelled in maths but needed extra support in English undoubtedly benefited from being in a set that was right for them.

Unless we believe that children have a responsibility to be a tool to aid other children’s learning, I don’t see how anyone can argue with setting.

What year is your DC in OP? Where I teach Year 7 are mixed ability and then they are setted from Year 8 onwards. We do this as primary data can sometimes be misleading (not all but there is a variation between schools). By keeping mixed ability it means the kids can be put in the correct sets using a variety of data.

I think the school you talk about is in the minority as many schools really push for high achievers

Work is progressive, the old model prevented those working below standard to ever moving up as their work was only ever given at a lower standard meaning that was all they could ever achieve. Now work is progressive so they all get the same work and it gradually gets harder. Differentiation prevents others from ever achieving. Making work progressive so those who are able will rapidly move through the easier work onto the challenging work allows all to achieve. In the same way that children who are working above expectations might really struggle in one area such as position or time and then they will just flounder if given the harder stuff without having access to the basics first.

Clocks

Setting works OK, in general, for those who sit in the middle of a set's ability range. They don't work well for those in the grey areas at the top and bottom of each set - should someone who get 1 mark less in a one-off exam be at the top of Set 2 while their near-peer be at the bottom of Set 1? The first child might really miss out on the challenge and peer explanations they would get in Set 1. The second might be intimidated by the pace of Set 1 and feel 'stupid' by comparison.

On an anecdotal level, I am aware of a school that set in KS2 for maths. Their SATS results for Maths - both at Greater depth and Expected - increased extraordinarily when they moved to mixed ability teaching. I enquired as to why, and was told that the greatest improvements were from those who would have been in the top third of the set below - which was expected - but also those who would have been in the bottom 25% or so of the set above, which wasn't expected.

Really bright children are able to work out how to extend the task and challenge themselves so aren’t sitting there with nothing to do, claiming to have finished. Same in maths; a really bright child will be able to demonstrate multiple ways to find a solution.

This is all true, but what about the child that isn’t really bright, just normal bright with normal things going on in life that create barriers to learning? Or the child that is really bright but has a poor grasp of how to extend and challenge themselves because they have never been supported at home? Wouldn’t that child gain more in a class where the teacher input time could be spent less explaining the story and more initiating the debate about whether or not the Bayeux Tapestry was a credible source because the class had already grasped everything else?

Tbf, history probably isn’t the best example of where streaming is needed.

setting for individual subjects is a must to enable all children to achieve their potential IMO.

All subjects? Is the evidence there for ALL subjects? Art? DT?

@cantkeepawayforever isn't that where teacher’s knowledge, experience and judgment should be used? A good teacher will know whether a child on the border should be moved up or down according to that individual.

It’s not something that I think is essential from primary right the way through, but children do benefit from it IME from Y7/8.

A good teacher will know whether a child on the border should be moved up or down according to that individual.

'Well, Child A is good at x and y aspect of the subject, near peer B at a and b. there are only 32 spaces in top set, I have to choose between them (and the 5 others in the same position)"

I think it is simplistic to say it is obvious to a teacher where a child would do best, particularly if the two children have been in different sets, taught by different teachers, and the decision is about where they should be the following year with 2 yet further members of staff..

It doesn’t say all subjects, it says individual subjects. I can’t see schools ever having the resources to be able to set for subjects like art or DT, but in an ideal world, it would be wonderful if they could offer enrichment clubs for children who are talented in all the subjects.

@cantkeepawayforever is there a difference between setting and streaming (asking honestly, not in a sarcastic way!) I've heard both used and assumed they meant the same thing.

It depends on how you define being well served though, doesn’t it?
A bright child who could have gotten A*s gets B’s. They’re still ‘ok’, but not pushed to their full potential.
A child that could have failed gets D’s with ‘some’ extra support. However said child could have achieved B’s and C’s with more tailored tutoring.

There’s also the disengagement etc of bright students.

At the end of the day a factory systems which shoves kids into too big classes, not enough space for individual support is always going to fail pupils. For me failure = not achieving full potential. Not just exam grades, but passion for learning.

I didn’t say it would be obvious. I meant that I’d be happy to trust a teachers judgment.

I’m coming at this from the perspective of what I think is best educationally for children, not what I expect schools and teachers to be able to achieve right now.

'Streaming' = a year group divided, full time and for all subjects, into different ability groups. So a child will be in 'the top stream' or 'the lower stream' for every lesson. It's relatively rare now, though I have known it in e.g. Kent, where some of the non-grammar secondary moderns have a 'top stream' that is meant to be more 'grammar like'.

'Setting' = ability grouping for each individual subject, so a child could be top set Maths and lower set English and middle set PE. This is much more common, particularly in Maths in secondary.

That is how the terms would be used 'in educational discussions', in general, though I can quite see that in 'general conversation' use they could have become less distinct.