Being in top set at a state school makes a HUGE difference

[theprincessthepea]

To think that you have a better chance of having a successful secondary school experience if you are in top set.

I was catching up with some mums and I asked them how the secondary school experience is going for them so far.

It’s a good school (we didn’t get into our first choice) but they have a huge focus on sports, music and extracurricular aswell as encouraging extra studies.

My DD is in top set, I have found that she has been challenged. She is taking up 2 instruments which she is enjoying. She has joined the drama club and outside of this does gymnastics. She has been chosen to take up Latin and takes up extra duties at the library. She is encouraged by teachers. So are the other 2 friends in top set, their parents are pretty happy with the experience so far. Her form tutor is also very encouraging (e.g. reminding her she can run for things like school council. Said she was bright etc).

However the parents that have their children in the lower sets (mid to low) felt that the school didn’t encourage their children at all. Were not happy with the experience. Didn’t feel that the school were pushing their children. Most of these parents ensured their children were involved in at least 1 extracurricular activity, both at school and outside school.

Personally I went through state school education - was in second set and found the experience OK compared to friends that were in top set.

AIBU for believing that to make the most of a state school or get an education that is close to what people pay for in private school - you have to be in top set classes.

From my experience higher sets also have better behaved children in them generally, so I can see teachers having more time to actually teach/engage. Sometimes in lower sets they're having to do lots of behaviour management.

Gosh no, my daughter is in the top set, straight A student with grade 8 piano and violin and swims competitively 5 days a week. She is a national chess champion and is having a dreadful time at school. She is utterly bored and not nearly challenged enough.

I don't think that in any way equates to private school experience, but IME it's preferable than being in the lower sets where the teachers have to waste more time on behavioural issues, instead of teaching.

This is so true... when I was at school (a gazillion years ago), it was the chattering and non-engagement of some pupils that undid what was otherwise good teaching.
Mind you some of the teachers were fierce and passionate which probably wouldn't be allowed now

Yes lower sets will present with so many different issues that schools struggle to manage.

Being in the top sets is segregation from the below sets because as pp said the behaviour will be different. A child who is doing well may not suffer from self esteem issues, behaviour issues perhaps from undiagnosed sen or perhaps from sen that can't be managed easily.
Family problems and all sorts of things.

My children came over from NZ, years 8 and 10, at that time. They were both put in the middle set. We, and they, worked our tails off to get them to the top set - because we'd heard, and then experienced, that the top set tend to be more focussed, and less disruptive. My experience of state school, both here and NZ, is that you get out what you put in.

My DD main complaint is the boys dominating. They are only set for STEM and its two thirds boys..

However its a very supportive school.

My DCs school hardly sets at all as the research shows it disadvantages those who would be in the bottom sets (who are often disadvantaged in other ways too). So I suppose that that is a way of counteracting what you have identified.

I have to say that it is still the bright middle-class (usually white) students (my DC among them) who get a lot of attention from teachers and take up the extra-curricular activities.

Yanbu. The idea of a comprehensive school is to effectively have a grammar type stream for those with the capacity and a more basic less academic version for those whose skills are elsewhere, but crucially rather than labelling children as able or less-able they are supposed to make it possible for children to be in high sets for some subjects and lower sets for others and also make it easy to move up and down the sets as skills develop. However not all comprehensives run on this theory and some basically categorise the kids early on in y7 and have very little flexibility.

I agree with this too!

I think the higher level the more bored you’re going to be. I was in top sets for everything and hated it

college and uni however were awesome! I went onto be an engineer in a very male dominated industry, it just superseded the levels so quickly above what school did.

@myphoneisbroken

I find that way of organising things interesting.
I can't see how top set students can help with the issues that are why the others are in the lower sets.

I was an engineer so did lots of stem at school and college and can confirm I was the ONLY female in the entire year!!

Well yes, obviously. ("No shit Sherlock" springs to mind.) The top set has the children who are capable and willing to learn. Disruptive children are rarely first rate scholars so naturally get filtered down to the lower sets.

That's why (in my view) pupils in private schools do better - the worst children are weeded out, either through selection/exams or because parents paying fees are more likely to keep a firmer discipline over their children who don't apply themselves. State schools have to accept just about any child.

I moved to an all girls school for sixth form due to similar problems! Then went on to study engineering after hating Physics before sixth form.

Also its been mentioned about segregation... DD is actually in an extra support class for English due to dyslexia. And mixed ability sets for humanities and arts subjects.

This kind of thing worries me as I have a 10 year old with MLD who I'm assuming will be bottom set. He is so willing to learn, despite being behind and I'm worried his class will be full of distractions.

@ChristmasEvemaddness I think the point is that being in a bottom set is a poor educational experience. If you don't set, then you don't have bottom sets, so nobody has to be disadvantaged by being in one. Of course there is a downside for the higher-achieving children, as they don't get the chance to be in a top set - but they are likely to do well anyway. So if you care about closing the educational gap, not setting seems like it's the way to go.

https://www.risingstars-uk.com/blog/february-2018/grouping-maths-blog

In year 7-8 i was in top set, then when my parents split up i moved to a bad area of town and moved school. I struggled to settle as you can imagine, so i was moved to middle set and my classes where full of bad behaviour and the teachers couldn't control them. So i had less self confidence in my own ability and due to class behaviour we were always behind lesson plans and ended up doing bad in gcses, after school i went to an open college and re took my gcses and got alot better grades.

There is more behavioural management in lower sets but that's where good teachers come in. I have kids with learning difficulties and have excellent teacher who engage them. I have found though that some parents are in denial of their child's abilities and think they should be in higher sets and pushed more when the child's current skill set doesn't match that

Well, of course, because there is a strong link between attainment and behaviour.

The evidence from the EEF suggests that setting has little or no impact.

EEF report

@myphoneisbroken

I'm care very much but I'm sorry I can't understand how it benefits dc who could for instance be on further maths moving at a very fast pace and how it benefits those in the room who do not have even number bonds or times tables.
I can't fathom it.
How can those reading heavy novels and have advanced reading ages be catered for along with those still struggling to read?

I find in sets, there is still top of the bottom stand bottom of the bottom set and even within those perimeters it's hard to cater for those needs?

I think it definitely helps. Better behaved children, though for some of the option subjects there’s no set and in those subjects my daughters classes are disrupted. One poor teacher was crying last week. My DD’s year are particularly bad, much worse than DS’s year. My DD is very quiet and does a lot of self learning to catch up. She is in an outstanding school and is predicted top grades so guess the school are doing something right. The more capable students are stretched and given lots of self learning to do to get those top grades.

@ChristmasEvemaddness It doesn't benefit the higher achieving DC. They would probably be better off under setting where they would be with other motivated, high-achieving children. (My DC is in this category so I understand your objections.)

But it does benefit a really important group of children - those who would be in the bottom sets, and who are likely to e.g. fail GCSE English/Maths. This group of children (who are often economically and socially disadvantaged) are more likely to pass if there is no setting.

So it's essentially a (small) sacrifice on the part of the better achievers (who will do well no matter what) to help those who are in danger of leaving school without essential qualifications.

@myphoneisbroken Clever kids may do well anyway, but they won't be fully stretched or excel as much as they possibly can in mixed ability classes. Why should their potential be stunted for the sake of the less able?

I don't have any personal experience of setting in this way, but DS is in top sets for maths, English, and science I think, and says that he prefers those lessons as the behaviour is much less disruptive overall.