No difference between state and private schools

[richmal]

Mr. Gove wants anyone walking into a state or private school not to be able to tell the difference. Could they not simply count the number of children in the classroom?

camilamoran
You have misunderstood the statistics.

Private school fees have increased at double inflation every year for the last 20 years.

Private school is much less affordable than it was
and salary inequality is significantly higher today than it was 40 years ago.

If you look here www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn04252.pdf
on page 9, its clear that the proportion at private schools is still lower than it was when I was a kid

'as in a comp school I cannot see why a bottom set for the bottom ability is a bad thing to help those students get appropriate qualifications'

Really?

Bottom sets include disproportionate numbers of boys, black kids and summer born kids.

Kids feel written off and suffer more dents to their, probably already, low self-esteem.

They are not exposed to the ideas, motivation of kids in the other se

Bright kids who underperform because of poor motivation and poor behaviour get lumped together with kids with SN which is an extremely unhelpful combination for both sets of kids.

Like I said, it was assumed that small bottom sets would help provide a targeted education for kids who were underperforming/less able at my school but when I did the research the value added for this group was less than every other set year on year.

Have got rid of the bottom set and we're finding that kids are getting swept along and supported better in a different way of setting now. Kids who are most benefiting are the bright but lazy/poorly behaved because we can split them up and there is much more incentive for them to conform.

As with the whole grammar school debate parents often love the idea of bottom sets and secondary moderns. Unless their own kid falls on the wrong side of the divide.

Bottom sets include disproportionate numbers of boys, black kids and summer born kids
Do you have data to sort that assertion?

Just that at DCs school and all the others round here, different kids are in different sets for different things as even non academic subjects are set

non academic kids can be in high sets for sports and arts
great mathematicians can have two left feet

and DSs mate who is a black summer born boy is not in the bottom set for anything , nor is DS who is also summer born though pale skinned

'DSs mate who is a black summer born boy is not in the bottom set for anything'

Well that's all right then

For example:

'n a wider level, structured ability grouping can be perceived as denying educational opportunity to particular groups of pupils. There is evidence that low ability groups tend to include disproportionate numbers of pupils of low socio-economic status, ethnic minorities, boys and those born in the summer (see Hallam & Toutounji, 1996; Ireson & Hallam, 1999). '

www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00001359.htm

'However, children
with behaviour problems are often placed in the bottom groups no matter how highly they achieve. Research has suggested that the
bottom groups tend to include disproportionate numbers of pupils from the most disadvantaged backgrounds, boys and summer-born
children.'

www.primaryreview.org.uk/downloads/PDFs/Press/9.Learning-teaching/080516_The_Independent_Setting_harms_education_of_some_young_children.pdf

This stuff does not get reported because it suits the rosy tinted harking back to the good old days when people knew their place which informs education policy today and which seems to tap into collective myth making about the past as opposed to what actually works.

'at DCs school and all the others round here'

It really is worth challenging the things the 'way things work round here' or the 'way things used to be'.

Unfortunately, the people who are most disadvantaged by setting are the least likely to be able to challenge the advantages or be listened to

'non academic kids can be in high sets for sports and arts'

You see this sort of highly judgmental labelling i.e. 'non academic kids' and language to do with 'high' and 'low' and 'top' and 'bottom' is used without qualms and then you are surprised to find that kids in the 'bottom' set may not find being in that set conducive to learning.

whendidyoulast
why do you have a problem with the incontrivertible fact that intelligence is a normal distribution?
for every right hand tail kid, there is a left hand tail kid

what would you call the non academic really thick kids ?

they will leave school just about able to read and write
no teaching system in the world will change the lack of synapses in their brains

HOWEVER
in a comprehensive school they will walk along corridors with high level work on the wall so if there is a spark there it is more likely to be found

and sorry but mixed ability classes harm all kids unless the school has selected on entry.

Talkin, you asked for the evidence and you've completely ignored it.

If you had read any of my links you would have worked out that setting is not and cannot be done on the basis of 'intelligence'. Summer born children are more likely to find themselves in bottom sets along with black kids and poorly behaved kids. That has nothing to do with intelligence.

Placing kids in the bottom set is very unlikey to help them to learn.

Attitudes to learning are not simply about how intelligent you are.

A 'non-academic' label is likely to be self-fulfilling.

Do you know that summer born kids are also less likely to go to university?

That is not because they are born less intelligent.

'no teaching system in the world will change the lack of synapses in their brains'

You seem to have an extraordinary fatalistic and completely ignorant attitude towards education. I find it deeply unpleasant and out of date.

It is the job of schools and teachers to help all kids reach their potential and not to write off people because they may be or may be quite wrongly perceived as less intelligent than others.

'HOWEVER
in a comprehensive school they will walk along corridors with high level work on the wall so if there is a spark there it is more likely to be found'

Eh?

You think it's ok to put kids in bottom sets and call them thick because they might be inspired by wall displays?

WTAF

'sorry but mixed ability classes harm all kids '

A popular assumption but there is no evidence to support it.

You asked for evidence, ignored it and carry on trotting out the same tired old assumptions.

How depressing.

whendidyoulast
children currently of University age are less likely to have been born in August
BUT
as the correlation was nailed down only five years ago, the strategies to counteract it have not yet fed through to UCAS forms

please do not do a Gove and apply historic data without giving time for it to roll through.

The changes in London outcomes are currently at A level, being reinforced at GCSE
there is a seven year delay

you seem to treat a "bottom set" as a sort of dungeon.
THat is not the case
it is a flexible and variable space

DH goes to lots and lots of schools and he is very aware that sets vary depending on the subject

but forcing slow learners to fall behind in a mixed ability room leads to truancy

and making bright kids slow down to the level of those who will never achieve a GCSE is just stupid

If you are against setting, what would you have a comp school do with those who start year 7 with level 3c in their SATs?

and what do the researchers say?

It is the job of schools and teachers to help all kids reach their potential and not to write off people because they may be or may be quite wrongly perceived as less intelligent than others.

it is not a perception that some children are thick, just as it is not a perception that some children are bright

would you tell all the kids at the superselectives that they have just been taught well rather than having aptitude?

genetic variation is a fact
height - weight - IQ - hair colour

'but forcing slow learners to fall behind in a mixed ability room leads to truancy

and making bright kids slow down to the level of those who will never achieve a GCSE is just stupid'

You have, I assume, heard of the concept of differentiation? And personalised learning?

There is evidence to suggest that the learning of kids in top sets can be damaged by a one (fast) pace fits all as much as the kids in the bottom sets (who the evidence tells us might be there because they are poorly behaved, black or summer born) can damage those in the bottom.

'If you are against setting, what would you have a comp school do with those who start year 7 with level 3c in their SATs?'

I refer you to my previous answer: differentiation and personalised learning.

'and what do the researchers say?'

Have you not read my links above?

Your Links ....
the Leeds one is from 1999 - 15 years out of date

the Primary review one is about Primary (so not relevant to my question) and from 2008 so 6 years out of date

so no, I'm not going to chew through them as they do not reflect current approaches

please answer the question

If you are against setting, what would you have a comp school do with those who start year 7 with level 3c in their SATs?
by defining differentiation and personalised learning
within the context of the funding formula in a mainstream school

as I (and DH) deal with the real world

'Approximately one-third of the students taught in the highest ability groups were disadvantaged by their placement in these groups because of high expectations, fast-paced lessons and pressure to succeed. This particularly affected the most able girls.
• Students from a range of groups were severely disaffected by the limits placed upon their attainment. Students reported that they gave up on mathematics when they discovered their teachers had been preparing them for examinations that gave access to only the lowest grades.

• Social class had influenced setting decisions, resulting in disproportionate numbers of working-class students being allocated to low sets (even after ‘ability’ was taken into account).

• significant numbers of students experienced difficulties working at the pace of the particular set in which they were placed. For some students the pace was too slow, resulting in disaffection, while for others it was too fast, resulting in anxiety. Both responses led to lower levels of achievement than would have been expected, given the students’ attainment on entry to the school.

A range of evidence in that study linked setting to under-achievement, both for students in low and high sets, despite the widely-held public, media and government perception that setting increases achievement. Indeed the evidence was sufficiently broad ranging and pronounced to prompt further research in a wider range of schools.

www.nottingham.ac.uk/csme/meas/papers/boaler.html'

1998

please answer the question rather than keeping posting ancient research papers

'as I (and DH) deal with the real world'

I am a teacher in the real world who has just researched the impact on results of setting in my own department in my own school and found value added to be worse in the bottom set. We have abolished the bottom set. Results, particularly amongst kids who would be in the bottom set based on their attainment (but who may well be bright but disaffected for a variety of reasons) already look promising. I am not going to win the argument to mixed ability teaching because of the firmly held assumptions like your own that the brightest kids benefit from being in the top set. There is an understandable tendency for those parents whose kids are in the top sets to wish to defend them. Such parents tend not to think of the whole picture in their wish to promote their own kids, regardless of the evidence.

The answer remains the same.

Teaching geared towards learning needs of individual needs within a group rather than perceived needs of an entire group is better teaching.

And benefits every child within that group.

my DD is headed Oxbridge way - she is in mixed ability for several subjects (tech and humanities) and it works fine, for other subjects (maths, science, english) it would never work
and neither of my kids will EVER be top set PE

but I genuinely do not comprehend what you mean by fully differentiated learning within a mixed ability set in something like science

for that matter, mixed ability PE is nearly as disastrous as county level athletes are racing kids with health problems

and yes, disaffected is an issue : PRUs are interesting places, much underused by too many LEAs

I'm not quite sure why you're struggling to understand how differentiation might work.

One of the issues with setting is that teachers often think they don't have to bother with it hence the problem with pace and expectations esp in the top and bottom set.

I have never heard of schools that set for PE. I teach children who play sport at county and national level and they do PE with everyone else. Clearly they are not hampered by this experience.

I have taught mixed ability English to candidates who have got into Oxford and Cambridge. Your assertion that it 'would never work' is clearly miles out.

how would you teach a year 10 maths class with kids ranging from L8 to L3