Can we have a heated debate about ability setting in schools?

[pinksquidgy]

New education minister Nicky Morgan was rumoured to be considering making setting by ability a compulsory part of getting an 'outstanding' Ofsted classification. Caused a bit of a storm and now looks like she's rowing back.

When I heard this I thought 'I wish she bloody would'.

I know whole-class teaching/mixed groups are better for children who are struggling (for whatever reason) and I do get that that's important.

But I have two very bright DCs (i know, i know) and I cannot tell you how bloody sick I am of them being given things to colour in while the teacher gives most of her time to those who are at the lower end of the attainment range.

I'm guessing this is a result of the target culture - it seems to result in schools desperately scrabbling to get the 'D' student up to a 'C'. Students who were always going to be a B or an A just get left to stew and it's starting to drive me potty. (I do also realise this is partly a function of bad teaching and poor management - but that, unfortunately, is what our local primary is like.)

Don't clever kids matter too? Would it be so wrong to prioritise them just for once - maybe just for core subjects like numeracy and literacy?

My older DC has just gone up to secondary. EVERY single one of the 'clever' kids he started out with in infants (those who were getting similar SATS scores) has gone into the private sector or free schools, by hook or by crook. He is the ONLY one of his academic peers who has gone into a state comprehensive. This is the flipside of schools failing to look after clever kids: their parents simply opt out of the state system altogether - which is no good for anyone, surely?

I'm deeply committed to the ideal of comprehensive education in my heart (and in my wallet tbh) but once, just once, I'd like someone to think about what might work best for the children at the top end of the attainment range.

please don't kill me

"Sorry, but I really don't see this as a solution to the problem (though I suppose it at least accepts there is a problem)."

I don't see it as a solution to the problem either. But it's important for people to understand that schools which are not thinking about all children achieving are not doing their job as expressly set out by OFSTED. And can be called out on it. Too many people still think that schools aren't judged on the achievement of all abilities, and think it's only the number of level 4s that matter.

But IM direct E nothing DOES happen. The school is put in special measures but nothing changes for the real outliers. And OFSTED don't care about 1 or 2 children. They aren't statistically significant and at primary level, which is where the problem will first manifest itself (and the point at which people affected start thinking in terms of grammar school or even going private), high achievers are usually viewed as the group of kids likely to get level 5s at the end of Y6. What about the kids capable of (or actually) working at L5 or L6 in Y4? That's where the rot sets in, that's when parents think Something Must Be Done.

As one of my colleagues said to me, there was for many years a flat denial that there was a problem.

The problem was that DC from private schools and selective schools were overachieving.

The mind boggles as to who came up with that one.

And of course the most selective universities were blamed for all sorts of bias and threatened with quotas etc.

I think one thing that will help here is the new focus on progress for all children, in both primary and secondary schools. Schools will be considered below the floor target if children aren't making sufficient progress from their starting point. I know the devil is in the detail of how this plays out, but I think it's a welcome way of ensuring the progress of every child is considered equally important.

Word, if you've got a moment, there is a thread about number of A levels for university entrance over on Secondary that would benefit from your input.

amber I agree that it's a step in the right direction. And does at least acknowledge the problem.

hak will look at it

My son has just got into year 5. In year 3, the children were put in sets. My son had an excellent teacher and achieved level 4c in maths and 4b in English at the end of the year 3. In year 4, the school got rid of sets, he had a different teacher, who was no match on the previous one, and the problems began.

Since about October last year, my son started complaining that school was boring and that he learnt nothing.

He got extremely demotivated and wouldn't even do the work he was told to do during the lessons. Not because he didn't know how to, but because he was bored and didn't see the point of doing number bonds to 20, when he was comfortable dealing with negative numbers and decimal points. This is what he said to me in the presence of his teacher when I asked him why he wasn't doing the work that was given to him.

He became disruptive and I started getting calls from school about his behaviour - which had never happened before. This is what lack of setting and poor teaching meant to us.

He used to be happy at school, now he hates. When his new year 5 teacher asked the children to write letters to themselves stating their worries and ambitions, my son apparently wrote that he was worried he would have a horrible year in year 5. This is not what you would like any child to think.

Our school's headmaster is against setting because, as he argues, it makes the best performing children used to success too much and when at some point they don't come up tops in something, they don't know how to handle it. Perhaps there is something in it, I don't know, but I imagine these sort of issues can be addressed by parents.

I would not mind so much whether my son is streamed or not if class sizes were smaller and the quality of teaching was good enough and consistent throughout school.

How can a teacher in a class of 34 children of mixed ability cater for the needs of all children, from the weaker ones to the brightest? Someone will always lose out.

Teaching should be delivered at a level matching a child's ability and schools need to find ways of doing it - whether through ability setting, extension work or a small group support when needed. Otherwise, a significant number of children will be disengaged and demotivated and often disruptive. At which point, the school will start looking for someone to blame and no prizes for guessing that the blame will land with the parents...

"The problem was that DC from private schools and selective schools were overachieving."

But funnily, there is some evidence that the A level grades children at private schools get are not actually a particularly good indicator of their actual ability - hence state school pupils with similar grades doing better at University (ie more likely to finish and a better class of degree).

In other words - they have 'over achieved' because they've been intensely spoon fed and coached for exams, resulting in better results but not necessarily better learners.

"There seems little point having students who are gaining full marks in GCSE controlled assessments sitting with students who are having trouble even accessing the curriculum."

I think weaker students gain hugely through sharing a class with children who who are doing more challenging work.

I've found this myself as an adult learner - it's brilliant sharing a classroom with people who are quicker and smarter than me. It pushes on the pace of learning.

De-setting twists my gourd 1penny - our primary de-setted maths in when my DS was in Y4.

Agree that it all comes down to the quality of the teaching in the end. The problem seems to be that the best teachers, not unreasonably, tend to want to teach in good, well-led schools.

One of the problems here i think is that 'being clever' can be a very important part of a child's identity. My older DS isn't a natural socialiser; he hates football; he doesn't have any interest in Britain's Got Talent; he isn't one of the popular kids. Being 'the geeky one' who does well in core academic subjects is a big, important part of his identity and self-esteem. So the failure to acknowledge his strengths in those areas (which is a characteristic of bad or low-expectations schools) actually has an impact on his sense of self and wellbeing.

It's the equivalent of taking a kid who's struggling at academic subjects but is brilliant at football, and saying 'no you can't have a place in the school football squad just because you're good - it's not fair on the others. And just so we don't make anyone else feel bad, let's not make any sort of a fuss about you having a talent in this area.'

mini that isn't what the evidence says if you look closely. Though I know it's a thought that pleases some.

The evidence is that at the low end, where students were accessing the least selective courses with the lowest A levels, state schooled students achieved more firsts than privately schooled pupils.

At the more selective universities that required higher grades, the difference was nominal. Thus, those privately schooled students who were supposedly 'spoon fed' to their high A level grades managed to keep up .

mini- it doesn't do anything for the brighter kids though, often it sets them up as targets for resentment (especially if there is anything about them that can also add to their being a target - being very small, for example, or having SEN issues).

Would also want to add, that I personally think that people from private schools are vastly over represented in the judiciary/politics/industry, for reasons other than they're actually the best people for the job by dint of their education or innate talents......

I think there are plenty of extremely talented people out there without clutches of A* GCSE's and A levels, it just takes employers to stop being lazy and complacent in their recruitment practices.

"How can a teacher in a class of 34 childr- en of mixed ability cater for the needs of all children, from the weaker ones to the brightest? Someone will always lose out. "

Well, in most rural primaries, that's going to have to be the case - if a year group is say 10 - 15 pupils, you're likely to have 2 or more years in one class, so the teacher will be teaching the full ability range over a wide age gap (eg could be from a just turned 7 y/o with an August birthday and significant learning difficulties, to a very advanced 9 year old with an early Sept birthday). I don't see what other options there are beyond massive bussing of children around (which doesn't help the dc or their communities) or boarding schools! Even more funding would lead to tiny class sizes, which isn't great either.

"mini- it doesn't do anything for the brighter kids though, often it sets them up as targets for resentment"

It doesn't at my dd's tough comprehensive or at my ds's inner London primary.

"At the more selective universities that required higher grades, the difference was nominal. Thus, those privately schooled students who were supposedly 'spoon fed' to their high A level grades managed to keep up"

What - only 'keep up' with young people with similar grades who'd received a (according to you) vastly inferior primary and secondary education? What sort of recommendation is that?

mini I'm sorry but there is little point having someone in a class discussing, say, poetic devices and whether they've been successful, if they can't really read or understand the poem.

How can they join in? It must be a horribly alienating experience. No wonder kids either go silent or play up.

Similarly, there is no point a child who wants and is ready to discuss the success of the devices being made to sit through an explanation of the poem and what the devices actually are. They're further on from that.

Look, I'm not saying that an able pupil won't have to sometimes listen to stuff they already understand. That's fine. But when it becomes a day to day experience, it is pointless and leads to underachievement.

mini - well it did at my 3 DC's primary school, and it does at DS's comp.

I've found this myself as an adult learner - it's brilliant sharing a classroom with people who are quicker and smarter than me. It pushes on the pace of learning

Adult learner don't generally have the behavioural problems that done children have and adults are in a learning environment because they want to be, not because they have to be.
Comparing mixed ability school classes with mixed ability adult classes is like comparing the taste of a bottle of champagne with a bottle of fizzy lemonade. Totally different.

mini I was being ironic - the wink was a clue!

pinksquidgy : 'no you can't have a place in the school football squad just because you're good - it's not fair on the others. And just so we don't make anyone else feel bad, let's not make any sort of a fuss about you having a talent in this area.' I couldn't agree more. It just doesn't make sense.

Takver: 'Well, in most rural primaries, that's going to have to be the case - if a year group is say 10 - 15 pupils, you're likely to have 2 or more years in one class, so the teacher will be teaching the full ability range over a wide age gap'. This is a very difficulct situation. My apologies for not appreciating the difficulties faced by small rural schools, I didn't realise what it was like.

Missunreasonable: 'Comparing mixed ability school classes with mixed ability adult classes is like comparing the taste of a bottle of champagne with a bottle of fizzy lemonade. Totally different.' Very true!

Just spotted this; heartily endorse setting, having taught mixed ability, vertically grouped and top, bottom and middle sets.
Setting extends and challenges the more able, gives those lacking confidence a chance to shine in the middle, and much more time for explanation and reinforcement to the strugglers; the brightest get their fair share of teacher's attention and the poorest aren't constantly humiliated and discouraged.
And you can talk to the different sets at a level they understand, instead of having to simplify or explain the meaning of every other word.
Best thing to come out of the shuffle so far!
(Oh, and it does make life a little easier for teachers, not having to differentiate at about seven levels for each lesson.)

Nearly everybody on here agrees that mixed ability teaching, holds anyone back who is not in the middle yet they don't like 'selective'education per-se.
I cannot understand why people want setting and streaming but are vehemently opposed to 'selective schools' that teach pupils in a atmosphere suitable to study.
Goblin. You are basically saying you believe in selective education( though I doubt you will say it).

When I failed the 11+ it was assumed that I went to the right school, I probably did. The problem was the teachers and the school did not separate those who wanted to learn and those who were 'hell bent' on causing mayhem. There was no setting, it was just a free for all you would be lucky to get 5 minutes teaching from any lesson. The truth is even my school should have been selective in having strict setting in every class and should have kicked out many pupils from the school.

Thinking about it I did pretty well coming out with 4D and 1 E GCSE grades, who knows what I might have come out with if the school had selected its best students and segregated them from the worst.

I don't think word is opposed to selective education. And I know I'm not.

I think there are some people posting here who definitely suffer a lack of choice, but my point still stands.

Last year over 86% got their first choice secondary school and only 3.5% didn't get an offer from their top 3 choices.

Clearly some people aren't able to get their first choice, but it's a minority.

However, the political nature of deciding to a) do what is best for your child or b) do what might be better for all children remains in your hands.

There is no right or wrong here, only political choices.