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.

The lower sets tend to have less kids in them so they get more individual attention. Top sets can be quite large.

I’d agree ds13 is dyslexic so is in a lower set for English. Lots of challenging behaviour and little teaching. Top set for maths and kids seem more focused / less messing around/ more homework/ general sense of teacher pushing them to do their best.

The problem is that alternative is that the potential of the less able is stunted so that the better able can flourish in the top sets. That's what happens under the current system - kids who are already disadvantaged are further disadvantaged and the educational gap grows and grows.

I have a very able DC who is not being stretched and in the case of one core subject is significantly underperforming due to not being in sets - but at the end of the day he is still highly advantaged compared to most of his peers in his inner-city comprehensive, so I support their policy of minimal setting, even though it's not great for him.

@PinkCandles my child is not in secondary yet. I thought the same as the OP and another parent mentioned exactly what you say. This reassured me a lot. As did speaking to a teacher who said they enjoyed teaching the lower sets as they can empathise with the obstacles to learning and find it rewarding to remove them.

I guess parents fear that the squeakiest wheel gets the oil - ie the trouble makers and the brightest! The school my child will go to talks a good talk but we’ll see 🤞🏻

@myphoneisbroken

My dc are opp learners, one's top one is middle to bottom.

I cannot see how the pace in maths which needs as many variables as possible for the dc from extremely fast for those that "get it" to slightly slower for those that also get it and will get top marks but need more time to those that don't get it and probably never will?

One teacher? Coping with further maths and those who don't get numbered bonds?

And will all the behaviour issues in between.

I'm just not buying it.

@YireosDodeAver thats interesting as my DDs school do this. They are in mixed form groups and then in sets based on subjects. My DD is in too set for all but went down in maths but says the learning style in 2nd set suites her better.

However they test them each term and they can move around anytime during the year which is quite nerve wracking for some children and very pressurising as my DD for example also values the friendships they make in those classes.

I didn’t realise this was a grammar school model. Perhaps is their way of aiming towards “outstanding”

@ChristmasEvemaddness Yes I know - it's counter intuitive! But there is lots of evidence to back it up. I guess that's why people do research on education, rather than us just going with our gut feelings which are often right but not always! https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/teaching-learning-toolkit/setting-and-streaming#:~:text=race%20or%20class.-,How%20effective%20is%20the%20approach%3F,impact%20for%20higher%20attaining%20pupils.

Our state school only sets in some subjects. All children have the opportunity to take classes like Latin, join the orchestra, take part in productions or join sports teams regardless of academic ability. This could be a school specific issue, although I do get the feeling that the classes which are set have broadly better behaviour.

Don’t worry, MN is full of people who think the pinnacle of a successful life is having an academically brilliant child at whatever cost!

the fact that they are labelling the majority of Lower sets as full of disruptive kids who have bad upbringings, poor behaviour etc is shameful.

academic brilliance doesn’t guarantee some of the most important characteristics in a child; that of EQ (which is being spoken about a lot now around how critical it is for a career), empathy, kindness, good mental health, and generally being a decent human being.

i have one academically very able child and one average. Sickens me that my youngest was in the lowest classes in everything and yet is the loveliest, kindest boy with exceptional EQ. For those reasons alone, I am prouder than if he was some academically brilliant kid without many of the above characteristics

the kids in the lower sets at school are more or less forgotten about whilst the school priorities the top sets.

We don't have sets in dc schools, with the exception of maths

I believe research shows its better not to stream kids.

@myphoneisbroken

But how does that address the issue of why those dc are struggling?

It doesn't make sense.

I've seen dc struggling within the bottom set alone.

They need more than mixing. They need time and speficic help to go over the basics they don't have. They need targeted help for dyscalcula, sen emotional issues and so on.

I'm an ex teacher and when my DD gets to high school I will most definitely be looking for a school that sets asap. Im lucky in that they are mid to higher ability generally. I wouldn't have said this a decade ago and preferred teaching mixed abilities but behaviour these days is bloody awful. And I don't mean violence and swearing. I mean continual shouting out, chatting, poking each other, getting out of seats, going in and out to the loo. There's so much learning time lost it's unbelievable. At least in higher sets there's some interested in learning.

The only lesson where my DC complains about behaviour is maths, which is also the only set class and it's the top set. Top set doesn't always mean good behaviour. They aren't fighting, but they are loud and disruptive and I suspect don't enjoy maths and use the cover of being the "good" kids to get away with being "boisterous".

Not my experience - twins in different sets and the difference I see is in their attitude to learning (clear before secondary and before they were in sets). One is very curious and the other lazy (does enough but predicted 6-7s rather than her sister’s 9s). Both encouraged and challenged.

Thick kids do better at private school.

And many on here always say that Private won't benefit this type of child because they will do well regardless. A child like this isn't challenged enough and is disadvantaged.

PP says...they are labelling the majority of Lower sets as full of disruptive kids who have bad upbringings, poor behaviour etc is shameful.

For whatever reason lower sets ARE full of behaviour issues. It's not the kids fault. It's lack of funding meaning no LSA , much larger classes than a decade ago, unmet mental health needs from the NHS, lack of resources such as working laptops or equipment for practicals that add variety and interest for the less academic.

Think human nature explains this - children that are easier to manage and get things faster are more likely to be engaged in extra activities, and make the staff running them look good. Trying to engage a child that needs extra support in some way is going to take more effort.

I do wonder why behaviour is so bad these days - I’ve observed it as a parent helper, shocked at the noise, blatant not listening, rudeness etc.

@Cerealkiller4U and @BabyYoshke I have heard about this boredom a few times whereby some children may not feel challenged enough.

I am not an academic expert at all but something I have seen as being super valuable as an adult is the idea of peer learning (which is something we practice a lot within my career) and the idea that “copying” is good. Whereas schools tend to prioritise individual learning and “looking at answers = cheating”

I am wondering if the idea of mixed abilities within a class encourages that a little more - as surely the teacher cannot teach so many abilities at once as @ChristmasEvemaddness pointed out. It will be so frustrating for the children that are more academic to wait for their peers to catch up - unless they are somehow involved in also contributing and sharing answers and there is more acceptance with a peer to peer approach. Which also allows them to gain other skills such as sharing their work and teaching etc. As someone pointed out it seems this method has benefits for those that may be forgotten about academically - but maybe there are some perks for those that would “do well anyway”.

I teach top set year 11 English this year and, believe me, behaviour issues are present there too. It really depends on the children and their values.

It's the Christmas holidays and I told my class I'd be available via email (not just because they're top set) as their mocks start on the first day of term. So far all the ones who work hard and engage have got on without asking for extra help, but I'll clarify things or give reminders, if need be. The ones who don't listen and expect to be spoonfed have bothered me to ask which topics are on the exams; as if this hasn't been been made clear and isn't readily available in the revision materials already provided.

Only some of these 'top set" students will actually reach their potential, whatever schools do for them.

You honestly can't do much answer sharing with students who are on further maths track and those who will be struggling to pass because they do not have the math foundations missing from reception...

And there will be reasons why they are missing those foundations :which mixed setting won't address.
The only section I can see benefiting are the top of the middle and top of the bottom..

Do people mean streaming or sets?

There used to be a school in Torquay that had a grammar stream - Westlands (now Spires I think). I am not aware of any other school that operates this way but might be wrong.

But usually in a comprehensive you are in sets for certain subjects like English and Maths and science, so you might be top sets for all or any of them. It will only affect that particular subject. Most teaching is in mixed ability groups.

In ds' primary they used to set for Maths but not English. And even in Maths they just had a top set and then parallel mixed ability sets below that.

I would also add that in previous years the less able were not forgotten about but there was ( in our area at least) much more flexibility of curriculum. We had more non GCSE options such as ASDAN and vocational experience, and more hands on GCSE options such as different technology subjects. We had kids leave at y10 and go to agricultural college and things like that. The less academic could drop some GCSEs and do extra classes for the subjects they really needed.There was d of e running every year. There was a much bigger focus on work experience and celebrating those who did well. This all seems to have gone from our local schools.

@Jennyjojo5 I completely empathise with you. My DD went to a state primary school that actually prioritised Emotional intelligence and life skills over academia. My DD had selective mutism at one point, a huge friendship issue which the school sorted as they found kindness and friendship and coping mechanisms just as important as academia.

They taught on finances, family, society, current issues like climate change and I believe my DD picked up so much from that.

The other parents HATED it as it wasn’t academic enough.

In year 5/6 my DD became more academic and was pushed. But for me it was so important that a school valued community, culture and attitude just as much as academia which is very hard to find. Also you don’t always pick up these things during an open day.

Well.of course you will.have a better time academically at least if you academic enough to be in the top set
But and I know this is going to blow the minds of some posters not every child is academic and will struggle at school not because they or their parents don't care but because however hard they try they just don't have the academic ability