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.

I think it significant that all of my friends who were in the top set at school can remember one or more teachers who, they say, were a major influence on them. Those of us who were in the lower sets can barely remember the names of any of our teachers.

My eldest, while incredibly well behaved and conscientious, was in in the bottom set for everything in years 7/8 and on a ‘flight path’ to achieve equivalent of Ds/Es at GCSEs and not very academic. As long as they don’t veer from the predicted path, the school doesn’t really care.
For various reasons, they moved to France in years 9/10/11 and went to a state international school. There was a fair amount of pressure and arse kicking there and ended up achieving a 7/8 in the IGCSEs, done as an ‘extra’.
Younger sibling at same UK secondary and is in top sets - seems to be having a better experience.

Children should not be disadvantaged by being in a lower set. Narrowing of the curriculum is not allowed in most schools (Ofsted hates it). All children should have the same opportunities and range of subjects. Good teachers will adapt their teaching so that all learners can access the curriculum. In my school behaviour is good in all sets, not just top sets. So it’s not always true that behaviour is poorer in lower sets. However, there is often a wider range of needs which can be tricky to manage depending on resources. But this is not necessarily ‘naughty’ or disruptive. However, some parents do need to be more realistic about their child’s true ability. There can be excellent teaching, great behaviour and a good work ethic but that doesn’t necessarily mean their child will get high GCSE grades. And some parents like to blame disruptive pupils and a lack of challenge for lower outcomes, when this is not always the case.

Not sure how things like learning extra instruments or school council necessarily have anything to do with top set though? Don’t the top sets just affect the specific subject they are in?

When I was at school we were only set for maths and English. I was in top set for both and I suppose it did make those subjects a lot better, as behaviour was never a problem, but I’m not even sure my form tutor would have known everyone’s sets off the top of the head? I can’t see how me being in top set for maths had any baring on the extra curricular so was invited to do? Or is setting a lot wider now?

@winewolfhowls I did find that when I was in school decades ago the bottom 2 sets actually did have lots of support and alternatives. They also have as many school trips as the “gifted and talented” and “top set” lot. Not sure what it is like these days but I have noticed that parents really need to get involved if they want to make the most of the school (e.g. constantly asking the school for
extra support for their children if they may have additional needs or mental health). It would be good to see a return in some of the points you’ve mentioned.

@x2boys your point is so valid and over the years I have found so many parents pushing their children to be academic and even going to the extreme extent of removing their “extracurricular activities” (e.g. no more painting until after exam season or no more dance classes until you get x grade) without realising the detrimental effect it probably has on the child’s self esteem and maybe even performance! I have seen somewhere that some creative expressions can help with focus at school and increasing grades.

One of my DC was top sets for everything and the other more mixed (generally set 2). I'm in no doubt the one in top sets had a better experience. Even sixth form is favours top set as they get creamed off into selective sixth forms with better resources leaving those in lower sets to see how they get on in large under resourced sixth form colleges.

I was this kid. Used as an unpaid teaching assistant in some unsetted classes. Fuck that nonsense.

It's fucking miserable. Your peers resent you. You're still bored and fully aware you're being exploited... Not challenged or learning anything extra. Also petrified that being seen as teachers pet would make you a target for bullies. I avoided this by being as avoidant as I could and never ever speaking in class.

Setting allows bright kids from families who can't afford private education a chance to escape from the hellscape that is their peers and actually get out of that environment.

Fewer kids from my year group went to Russell Group universities than ended up doing lengthy prison sentences. School was fucking terrifying. I was one of very few high achievers but so many more smart kids underperformed against their ability, dragged down by their feral peers.

Making bright kids do unpaid labour to try and teach the less able ones is morally corrupt and unfair.

There are many ways to address what you’re listing here. Broad banding is a wider way of setting but those who truly need a lot of help will be in a small ‘low’ set, or literacy class. Differentiation strategies are used in class very effectively.

The PP was correct in that research shows that mixed ability actually improves everyone’s abilities. Pupils learn best from peers and the reinforcing of higher order thinking by ‘top set’ pupils helps their development too. Teachers have many strategies to develop this. My school has mixed ability set which are carefully constructed and our results have improved.

PP was also correct though that teaching a top set is an absolute dream!

Depends on the school. DD2 is at a huge city comprehensive. Ability grouped for maths which then affects science sets, so if top set for maths then you'll be top sets for science and automatically take three seperate sciences at GCSE. Set for English affects humanities and mfl likewise. Two streams at the school, one stream take German as their mfl and the other stream French but streams are of parallel ability. Only mixed ability subjects DD was in were the creative ones and PE (and DD wished PE was set as she hates team games and would rather have been with like-minded kids...) DD is top set so behaviour has been generally good. Lower set behaviours can be more challenging. DD is quite academic and very motivated and has done well so far and I think has a more varied social circle than my nephew has at his country town grammar school.

So.lets just write off the less academically able they obviously don't want to.learn🙄

A close friend who is a 'head of' in an academy was given the diktat to stop wasting departmental resources on those who are unlikely to achieve a min C. They were told to focus on the top set and the mid sets where the C/D students sat and to pick out those who could get to a C with some extra support. All other students were pretty much left to fend for themselves.

Prior to becoming an academy this school had an excellent specialist centre for students with Autism and phenomenal playing fields. These were closed and sold once the academy took control.

I’m guessing you were at school quite some time ago. I teach a skills based subject so the answers etc are relatively subjective but our mixed ability sets do not create a classroom assistant at all. And if someone takes on a leadership role at times in a group setting, then that’s brilliant character building. But you’re completing under estimating the planning and professionalism of teachers.

I think @Blobblobblob has a very good point though. It’s good to hear your experience.

Yes maybe research shows that mixed ability classes means that “every kid wins” but the people that go with statistics alone without actually looking at case studies and individual impact means that we miss a wider point.

At this age peer pressure is huge and there are more factors that affect your life outcome beyond being in a set. Such as friendship groups, teachers and even home life.

@theprincessthepea I couldn't agree with you more. The aspiration set for kids in lower graded classes is abysmally. These kids are being failed by the education system and we should all be angry about it - academic intelligence is just one of many measures of intelligence....

I was in a school that didn’t set and was miserable. Teachers gave me and a couple of others worksheets/books as they couldn’t cover the A and A* work and needed to concentrate on getting people thru with Cs. People were horrible to you for trying and wanting to do well. I was either bored or working separately or given a group of the naughtiest to ‘help’ who then bullied me more. By 14 I was suicidal and wished more than anything I wasn’t clever and was ‘normal’.

Uni was better but I’m still in therapy in my 40s. Not setting does disadvantage more able kids in many schools - maybe they do ‘well’ anyway but the mental health impact can be awful, lack of any engagement in learning as you have the basics. It can be miserable.

You are confusing setting and streaming, for one thing. Setting is by subject so those in set 1 English and set 1 maths won’t necessarily be the same.
Also extra curricular opportunities aren’t defined by set/stream anyway. If they are, the school, is, quite frankly, shit.

As someone who was top set for everything but maths (lowest set - think it’s undiagnosed dyspraxia) there was a huge difference between treatment. My maths class were all written off as pointless to try annd teach and the teachers barely bothered. The bad behaviour that resulted was from boredom and an innate understanding that these children were being written off and simply killing time . Top set expectations and experience were so different - motivated and engaged teachers trying to get the best out of each student. It was bewildering to go from my top set lessons to maths classes.

As teachers we see the case studies day to day..you create an environment of high expectations within the classroom. The statistics are a results of huge studies and you can’t disregard the benefit for the majority because of a minority where this type of learning doesn’t appeal.
This thread suggests that all pupils except those in top sets wouldn’t try hard/make fun of others and disrupt. This absolutely isn’t the case in most schools.
In a caring, nurturing environment teachers prep classes with expectations. Those have to then be reinforced at home in terms of values but most pupils, especially by exam years don’t want to embarrass themselves and achieve lower than they’re capable of.

Peer learning is great IF both parties are on board with the idea that helping each other does not just mean telling each other the answers. If a more able child is explaining to another child how to do a calculation (for instance) then both children get a lot out of it (I always tell my pupils the best way to learn something is to teach it to someone else) - if they’re just giving them the answer no-one benefits. Peer learning/marking is great in theory but IME is quite hit and miss in practice.

I was top set for English, Latin and science, and bottom set for French and Maths. There were four sets. I suspect I was just a lazy little fucker who didn't bother trying hard in the subjects I didn't like.

I completely agree with both of your posts. I think we can thank progress 8 for that.

@cardibach I think it’s more so instruments are encouraged for top set. Everyone has the opportunity to do them but top set seem to have the teachers that are more encouraging. It was like that when I was young and the same for my DD. Although her school have said everyone should have at least 1 extracurricular activity.

@ZebraDanios I have noticed that there are some children that care about learning and some that don’t - it doesn’t mean that they don’t care about other things. This is just my observation from once being a student and hearing from other children. It’s not good or bad - it’s just all children have different interests.

I just asked my DD who is in yr 7 - she was in top set in maths and was put down to the 2nd set. She said “my top set teacher was so kind and we always had treats because we all do our homework. In the second set the teacher is ok, but we don’t always get treats because not everyone does their homework”.

Generally in top set the peer pressure may be more about being academic - my guess is that those children may share that common interest. I remember being in a top set class when I was younger (just for one lesson) and I was praised by the children for solving a complex puzzle! In my usual class nobody would have cared (second and middle)- the class clown was more impressive than the “boffin that knew the answers”.

I agree in practice it is more challenging - but it is unrealistic to expect all children to be on board unless there is a massive culture shift in the school itself. Also if all teachers regardless of set have the same drive to set expectations.

I can tell you from personal experience that being a top set child doesn't make you immune from 'family problems'! Or indeed mental health issues.

I do agree that behaviour and motavation to learn is likely to be highed in the top sets.

Peer learning in mixed classes always sounds great in theory, but my DC have yet to find any evidence where it works. When paired with a super achiever, super achiever just goes at rocket speed and they are flummoxed, or they are moved to be the peer teacher and the lower achieving peer learner refuses to talk or engage.

But, now they have experience of peer to peer learning in a top set and it is working fantastically. They are group within abilities in the set, and work together on problems very successfully. Maybe this is behaviour and attitude though.

@cheerypip of course not just like being at private school does not. However it's another barrier if dc are already struggling