To think this is elitist?

[FawnFrenchieMum]

State secondary school, year 7&8 currently has sets 1-5 for all classes (DD isn’t with her form group for any lessons and every class is different children).
Letter just before half term advised from next week when they return all the classes will be moved around and they will have a new timetable. Going forward, set 1 will be based on ability and be the highest achieving standard. Then classes 2-5 will now be mixed ability, there will be no ability setting within these groups.
Now I know there are lots of arguments for or against ability setting, but surely it’s one or the other. Why should the set 1 children get taught with like minded children but a child who just missed out on set 1 not, or a child who is really struggling academically now has to listen to a child who just missed out on set 1 know all the answers every week.
It feels totally elitist to me, but interested in hearing other peoples opinions.

Speak to any teacher and they will tell you that the higher attaining children can be just as disruptive as the lower attaining ones.

Your focus is with the ones who haven't got it yet. The ones who got it straight away and complete the work easily become bored.

They might find it easier and complete it more quickly but in order for them to be appropriately challenged, they need teacher input too. And, when they don't get it, they mess around.

A lot of it is to do with the pace of the lesson - particularly in maths.

But is it, or is it teaching the highest and lowest ability children to their ability and the average middle ground child just plods along having the best of no worlds?

I think they should all be in sets, for the best outcomes. I’m an ex teacher and mixed ability is a hellscape.

When I did GCSEs we were mostly taught in sets for Y10 and 11 but for a few subjects it was mixed due to student numbers. The mixed sets were horrific. As an able student I learned next to nothing. My mum basically taught me history GSCE. I would never send my child to a secondary school that didn’t set as a result of my experiences. I am sure it can be done well, and I don’t doubt it benefits some if so. But not in my experience

I'd want to know if all sets have equal access to qualified teachers, preferably specialists. So many schools are struggling to recruit as the DfE fails to meet target after target. This is what you should be asking.

I work in a secondary school, with the most challenging children we have there.
This is not a good move. Not at all. Traditionally, bottom sets have always been kept very small, due to behaviour and the amount of input needed from the teacher.
I'm guessing this will no longer be possible.
Only the top set benefits in this situation.

But is it, or is it teaching the highest and lowest ability children to their ability and the average middle ground child just plods along having the best of no worlds?
It's teaching the higher attaining pupils in an environment that is appropriate for the additional challenge they need, it's teaching the middle attaining children to their ability and because the ability range is narrower with the top set removed, there's space to provide appropriate support for lower attaining students.

Schools generally will group their students based on their knowledge of their cohorts and curriculum.

What your child's school has done would work brilliantly in one school I worked in, but wouldn't work for another I worked in because the cohorts were very different. Some schools I've worked in have had a separate stream for those students who need a different offer. Those classes are much smaller than a typical bottom set. It worked well in those schools. It wouldn't necessarily be right in all schools.

Why is this even an issue? Sets are good. The top students should be pushed and you can't do that in a mixed set. The middle and lower sets then get more help which gives pupils the chance to get better and move up. I was in set 4 and moved to set 2 over the years, you want to do better than your mates as well.

This country is so soft it's ridiculous - have some competition, aspire to be better.

It's like "everyone's a winner". No they're bloody not. 1st, 2nd, 3rd. Done. Aspire to do your best - as long as you beat your last score you are improving, if everyone wins, no one does, and that's the same with sets. Push aspiration and learning for success not the alternative weak woke nonsense.

The average middle child can be taught according to their ability - it does not have to be "plodding" with the best of neither worlds - maybe this is their appropriate level where they can thrive and learn.

It's better for everyone but the top of the second set, which works out best overall for the majority of the students (and the schools results!) they get to push 1/5th to get high grades, and the other 4 sets should get majority passes as the bottom is pulled up by mixed streaming.

The middle aren’t being “over looked” they are being taught to their level. It’s shit being in a class full of people who are more able and you struggle to keep up happened to me with maths (my weakest subject) when the middle sets were full.

Dds school ruthlessly sets in everything. I think it’s great. The pupils take it in their stride there’s no judgement from them and there is a lot of movement between the sets. Dd2 was sad to be put up a maths set as the teacher of the upper middle set was better and really nice. Her two best friends just been moved down from her top English set.

All sets are mixed ability to some extent.

In my experience set 3 out of 7 is the hardest set to teach properly as in this set you have an odd mixture of bright but poorly behaved kids (who probably could be in the top two sets but would cause a disturbance) and kids who sit around the average but try hard or are very quiet. It can be like teaching two distinct classes at once.

Sets aren't a science at all and most kids are predicted sixes at GCSE but some of those will get sevens or eights and some fours or fives as their ability/behaviour can develop, plateau or deteriorate. But all the sixes would be in a set together as who can predict the future.

The classes the school has formed will not be random but will be carefully thought about in terms of dominant personalities, behaviour management and different abilities. They just won't have been set solely in terms of ability.

Having an absolute bottom set that is formed for a purpose other than SEND is brutal for the teacher and soul destroying for the kids as it predetermined their outcomes.

Speak to any teacher and they will tell you that the higher attaining children can be just as disruptive as the lower attaining ones Can be, but much less frequently in my experience. Bottom sets can be dire for those who genuinely need a lot of help but are keen to learn.

At dds school the top sets are larger as the pupils need less one on one time and the lower the set the smaller it is.

Trust the teachers both ours have always felt their setting was about right as do their friends and they moved them around considerably. Think it’s just parents struggling to accept that their child may not be top set for everything.

If there was a best and proven way all schools should and would adopt this. There isn't, it will vary by cohort and also needs to be as fair as possible to students and teachers.

Are you saying that this is per subject or have they decided each new set contains the same children for every subject? I hope not! I do get having a top set for maths, some children (including high functioning) find maths easy and can work at a fast pace, some maths teachers will only teach these sets (wouldn't want that kind of teacher). That said it's very difficult to move up to this set if you don't start in it.

I think mixing kids from set 2 and below is very unfair. This is why many people (like me) chose private schools. My DC are bright but not all subjects top set, the quiet, hard working types that would just get left to it at state secondary and parents have to watch whilst the bright kids get all the extension etc, struggling kids get lots of support (RIGHTLY SO) whilst they have to pay for tutoring.

Sounds like it's all about results. Are you in a grammar area OP?

Well yes I would if it was the same set up. DD plays in Div 5 at football, her best friend plays in Div 1. If the league suddenly said, Div 1 will remain but we’re mixing up Div 2-5 then yeah, I’d be upset, she’s playing at her right ability in Div, I wouldn’t suddenly wish for her to be playing again Div 2 every week

But she wouldn't be playing against Div 2 every week, her mixed team would be playing another mixed team so it would still be fair. It's the same in this situation, there will be mixed abilities in her class.

Very unfair to say the “bright quiet kids are left to it at state” where is your evidence for this please? 🙄 My bright quiet hardworking Dd obtained a string of nines at her state school. She did better at her weakest subjects than we could have ever hoped for her science grades went from 4s in year 10 mocks to 8s in the real exams.

I'm not sure I agree about keeping the top set separate and then mixed ability in subsequent sets. But I suppose there is no perfect way to do it, and I don't think it's elitist.

My DS is in y8 at a state secondary and the system there is brutal and full on. 7 sets for each subject, top 30 go into the top set, 20-60 into the next etc. They base the sets on the outcomes of exams they take twice a year - my DS is ranked in every subject he does (out of about 160 in the yr) and given an overall rank. The boys' overall rank also determines what form they go into.

And they publish the rankings on school notice boards.

It is brutal. But works for my son. Also, it works for me - as I know exactly where he is in his cohort for every subject, be it number 1 for History or number 13 for Science. There is no hiding - if there is a problem then he and I will both be aware of it.

Kids do move all the time, as it depends entirely on exam results.

That is true.

However, I teach top maths set and bottom literacy in my school.

Behaviour is equally good, but can equally challenging, in both. It just looks different.

But is it, or is it teaching the highest and lowest ability children to their ability and the average middle ground child just plods along having the best of no worlds?

In a completely mixed class, we are told to 'teach to the middle' anyway so its completely taught around the middle ability and we extend or support/scaffold through targeted questions, task, and toolkits offered to for support for the highers and lowers.

This scenario is the hardest to teach in because you can't offer enough support to the lowest attaining children who often, by dint of their needs, don't actually use the support tools we provide - eg word mats, concrete resources - without adult assistance. Either because they forget they are there, forget how to use them correctly, forget when to use them or just can't be bothered with the effort required because its still difficult for them they just have extra 'things' on their table.

By the same token, we can't appropriately extend the highest attaining children because we can't get the focused time required to challenge their understanding and thinking because our attention is diverted because one child (usually a middle) hasn't quite got it or a lower is making guns put of cubes because it's more fun than using them to work out arrays. And they can't quite remember what an array is in the first place.

Setting them means that the middles, far from being overlooked, are actually able to learn because the pace is better suited to them.

It also means you can set the middles who have got it off on their task independently and invite those who still aren't sure to stay with you for a bit longer.

The middles are more likely to be 'plodding' when classes aren't set.

The range of ability across the board is actually quite small when you've removed the highest and lowest from the situation.

I don't know why some people assume we're utterly incompetent.

You have clearly not read the post at all. They currently have sets based on ability, they are moving to sets 2-5 being mixed ability (ie no sets!), only set 1 will be ability based.

Different sets for different subjects thankfully.

Odd grammar in the area but not massively grammar focused. Academy group very much focused on results.

Would you call it 'elitist' if it was football, tennis, cricket, music, etc? Where some very talented kids were practising together and 'accelerated'? Or is it because it's academic subjects that you object?

You're using 'elitist' as a derogatory label when others might applaud it. We have elite athletes and that's a good thing, yes?

If your child was in the top set, would you be unhappy then?

There may be a longer term plan to take their GCSEs in Year 10- some private schools have done this for years. (If the GCSE still exists in 3 years.)

The concern is once it is set there will be no movement between the top sets and others.

Truly no one ever moves sets would be very unusual ime. There's lots of movements in my experience, among my DC, from what I have heard from others.

I’m not sure I understand, you post reads like I’m wrong to be upset by the new system but then backs up all my thinking that teaching set 2 to set 5 in once class is hard work and not ideal of any of the children?