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 don't disagree with setting but it is tough for those like my dd who work hard, behave well but aren't academic. She is in the bottom set for most subjects and not pushed at all as she quietly gets on with things the best she can whilst the teachers try and deal with all the behavioural issues. I don't blame the teachers at all btw. Strangely she has just been placed in the top set for English, despite being predicted a d grade and having 1:1 sessions last year. I have no idea what that is all about but she is loving it and says the class is so quiet! She's fully aware she is not at the same level as the other kids but the teacher has apparently told her she is very welcome in her class (and her English and confidence have improved loads, plus she has now found a love of books).

As a previously underperforming top set student who looked like one of your latter students, I was suffering from abuse at home. I had a high ace score. Suffered neglect too so didn’t look/smell the same as my peers, had extremely low confidence and self esteem. Would regularly have panic attacks in class plus severe anxiety (was told it was normal by parents and if I told anyone I would be a attention seeking drama queen no one would believe me) and spend so much time focusing on not drawing attention to myself during panic attacks I could barely concentrate in class. Also had low attendance (regularly kept up till 3am).

also had female presentation of adhd and asd which wasn’t picked up. I didn’t know I was dyslexic either until college.

I just looked like a lazy, can’t be bothered child with poor hygiene happy to get a b grade instead of a/a* and was told as much.

pleaae show more compassion and vigilance for your pupils. You have no idea what they are going through.

Being in the top set does make a huge difference. After 6 years of boredom learning at a snail's pace in primary you can really engage with the curriculum and re-engage with learning again. Things move quicker, there's more and better discussion and far less bullying for participation. Behaviour is also largely better and you get to focus on your work, not the teacher trying to control the class.

This seems an odd school. In every school I’ve worked in the teachers teaching top and bottom sets/streams have been the same people - teachers get a spread of ability across their timetables. Also the only teachers likely to have any view on taking up an instrument are music teachers (and music is very, very rarely set - so I still think you mean stream, not set).

The issue is that schools are so under pressure to improve core academic attainment that unless you are doing well they seem to see extracurriculars as a distraction and would rather kids focus on extra maths and English work. This makes school a dull and unpleasant experience for children on the boundaries of attainment markers.

You really have to be lucky in having a school leadership with a very strong ethos to resist this hyperfocus on academic attainment - most schools do not.

Suffering abuse as home is clearly horrific and of course you're right that I can't know what every child is going through, however I don't have "no idea".

Today, poor hygiene alone would be enough of a concern to pass to the DSL to investigate.

Indicators of ADHD are included in training in ways they weren't in the past and would be noticed and referred to the SENDCO.

And I'm guessing you agree that parents are responsible for kids and their wellbeing outside school, which is partly what I meant by the values the students themselves have been brought up to have.

I'm talking about rudeness where they challenge what they've been asked to do and argue that they shouldn't put in the effort, and wanting to be told 'the answer' rather than thinking for themselves. They won't reach a top grade in critical literary analysis by churning out a prepared response which doesn't address the exam question or retelling the story.

I'm talking about an assurance and arrogance that 'being top set' means they can interrupt, talk amongst themselves, make paper aeroplanes out of extracts provided to them, and upend tables during playfights for amusement during the run up to Christmas, but expect me to take the time to offer additional support when they need to know the basics they realise they've missed.

Not to mention the ways these lads are bothering the ones who genuinely do have long term conditions and challenging home lives to deal with or are putting a lot of pressure on themselves to perform above and beyond.

Yes, teaching in lower sets is dumbed down to suit kids with bad behaviour, parents who don’t care and generally kids who are of lower ability. If your child is in the lower set, they will not get a decent education, unless they starts teaching themselves.

@cardibach

My dds school use sets. They are in a form class of mixed abilities then they are put in sets for all of their subject classes which ranges from top to bottom set and what seems like “ability”. Top set is at a fast pace and they learn differently. I spoke to a teacher friend who said that in science the experiments differ for top and bottom set - with top set more likely to use scientific equipment and bottom set using alternatives.

My DD said that they will also have sets for PE which I find bonkers - they did a PE test (which was a rugby match) and they will move up or down based on ability - I think this is unfair. They have sets for history, geography, English and even art - every single subject.

She is in top set for everything except maths. But they can be moved up or down throughout the year.

I’m sure I mean sets.

I know streams would be having the same class throughout your subjects, which is what I remember when I was in school. We were streamed from year 7 to 9 and then put in sets for years 10 and 11 (unless it was specialise GCSE subjects as the classes were smaller).

Now sets for PE probably makes the most sense, especially in areas where every other kid plays for an academy. I might have even got to touch a ball, once in 5 years, if we'd have had PE sets.

Like I said. Different sets and teachers for different subjects. Won’t be affecting extracurricular choices

I would like to see the data for the reports that mixed ability and streamed teaching have the same outcomes. I wonder if these schools using the mastery approach are the norm, and suspect not. Certainly Singapore is not struggling to manage behaviour, so I wonder whether schools using such an approach in the UK are blessed with well behaved intakes.

Sorry, mixed ability and streamed or set teaching.

The problem with sets is you’ll have a child happily coasting along in second / third / bottom sets who then surprises everyone by getting near to 100% when it counts and then nothing they’ve learned prepares them for A Level meaning A Level courses often have to waste a term going over the basics.

I believe strongly in sets. If the classes are all mixed then it just doesn't work for anyone - the more capable pupils will be bored and held back, the less capable will be bored and lost.

Sets allow pupils to learn at a pace that suits their ability and behaviour.

It is due to the fact that behaviour is better and teachers can get on and teach without constant low level or in some cases pretty awful behaviour. Private schools also appear to be better when in fact they are also offering a good experience as the kids generally behave well

@Plij @Preschoolmum78

Preschool mum my heart goes out to you and me and all those students like us.
Many nights I was cowering on a window sill hiding behind a curtain scared to absolutely death of the adults in my house, sometimes I braved walking alone at night to escape drunken wild violence even though I was also scared at 10 to be out alone..
I often had to stand between warring adults and try and protect myself and siblings from scary stuff.
My reports at that time say I was insolent, rude and idol in class...
. We need to wake up and get real with why children can't concentrate in class!!

At DC comprehensive it was often the 2nd set that had the best teaching as they required teaching whereas top set were meant to be good enough to get on themselves and so had weaker teachers. Bottom set was often very small so lots of attention for each pupil. Disruptive pupils were split between sets.

This is exactly why I wouldn’t have wanted to be set for PE. How would I have got away with doing absolutely nothing for a whole lesson if the teacher couldn’t give all their attention to the sporty ones because we were all as bad as I was…? 😉

I was in the bottom set for PE. It was brilliant. Half the class day on chairs in the corner because they had a note (and in those days a note from home must be obeyed). Another 5 with a long lasting call of nature and the rest of us threw or kicked the ball/shuttle cock as far as we could do we could spend the rest of the lesson looking for it. Good times, although the teacher didn't think so!

I was in the bottom set for PE and it was brilliant - everyone in the higher sets haf to carry on with awful muddy team sports, but those of us who had consistently shown ourselves utterly useless at such things for 4 years solid were finally allowed not to have to do that any more, and they spent the last year (GCSE year) trying to help us find sone form of physical activity we didn't hate. We had taster sessions of fencing, yoga, judo, trampolining, a couple of sessions at a gym, some swimming. I just wish they had done it sooner!

This is brilliant, agree that they should have done this sooner and I wish more schools did. DD climbs every weekend (and enjoys it and isn't bad at it) and swims well (due to out of school swimming lessons each week from being 3 years to 13 years) but loathes PE at school. She does her GCSES this year so it's not going to change. It was a great surprise to her year 6 classmates when they did a residential trip which had a climbing wall. Despite being tiny for her age she whizzed up the wall and nonchalantly belayed back down. TA friend who was there said it was very funny to watch classmates who had a poor opinion of her PE skills with mouths open 😀

However her finding things she likes comes back to funding and opportunities, we could afford to pay for (cheap as at a sports foundation) swimming lessons and we have a university nearby with a cheap climbing club (I suspect that the university under funds it as outreach to the local community). Education is fundamentally unfair and the playing field will never be level. And while MPs children and grandchildren are in private education there is little incentive for the government to change things.

Could she volunteer or get a part time job, develop skills other than just being the best at lists of things?

I taught for 30 years and I prefer setting to mixed ability every time. Mixed ability means that the majority of the work is aimed at the middle - yes, you are supposed to differentiate, but in practice this is impossible when you are teaching every year group, and in my case in three subject areas. No one has the time to create meaningful work for different abilities and deliver it all at the same time.

Setting works IF it is done properly. Sadly the resources are not there. Bottom sets should be for those children who really need extra support, but it reality they are the dumping ground for students who don't want to learn and are set to destroy the learning of others. Bottom set teaching is behaviour management with very little teaching. My heart went out to those students with additional needs who were stuck with the same disruptive students every single lesson. The one advantage of bottom sets is that there used to be a few TAs in there for those students who got this support. Sadly their numbers are dwindling.

Top sets in theory are fantastic to teach - keen, well behaved and motivated. Well, they used to be. When I started teaching a top set would have about 28 students. By the end the number was up to 35. Why? Because if you put more than 15 in a bottom set everyone would lose their sanity. Those disruptive students have to be spaced out, kept apart and micro managed. As a result the top sets are crammed to the gills. They include students who should not be there - the handful of poorly behaved students who must be kept apart from their peers, and the only way to do that is by pushing them up the sets.

And never assume very able students always behave. They don't. And there is little worse than the very able student who enjoys disrupting lessons - they have the skills to do this and will more often get away with it because they are so bright.

Add into this the obsession SLT have with league tables. The real focus now is on the boderline students. They are the ones that all of the resources, time and best teachers are being pushed towards. The old A* and A grades matter less than that magic C. Get the higher grade pass % at all costs - don't worry about stretching those at the top end. This means that the best teachers are put into the middle sets to drag up those grades. Top set does not always mean getting the best teacher.

She sings to cancer patients every Saturday and doesn’t have time for a job. Although sometimes the other parents in the top set offer her money to befriend and help their children in maths.

What does she do that she's not good at though? Coping with not always being at the top is really important too.