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

"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"
I've been on the other side of that divide, and it depends how well it is done. A friend and I signed up for an intensive Welsh course (4 hours/week plus significant homework). We both speak other languages already, and were very motivated as we had dc going into Welsh medium education. The other students had a very wide range of ability levels and motivation, and the teacher definitely taught to the slower end of the class. By the third time the two of us were only going to every other lesson (with no problem keeping up), and we didn't go back for the following year.

Smokepole "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."

Because children move around a lot between sets year on year and even within years, and because many children have very different ability levels between different subject areas - dd's friend is a high achiever in set 1 for science / maths, but at the bottom of set three + receiving extra support for language (dyslexia). That's an extreme example, but there are plenty of dc with similar situations.

I have ds who is both gifted and has educational difficulties (dyslexia) and dd who is very hard working/high achieving. They attend a completely comprehensive school as we live somewhere with no selection or private schools - in our town there are two religious schools, with very strict ongoing engagement criteria (requirements to support the school, church etc) that only very religious families use. Everyone else goes to the local school, and no one seems to feel that that is an issue. There are also no special schools (which personally I find a bit concerning - I have two very disabled relatives who in no way shape or form could have coped with mainstream schooling).

Not only is their school comprehensive but there is also no setting. The only thing they do is occasionally make children repeat the year or class, and later on there is a split in the type of Math and English classes (so ds for example is going to do Pre-Calculus rather than Applied Math next year as he is going down a science rather than a trades pathway, however his class is not considered better, just different). Our school is fairly high achieving compared with other schools in our province and the province does very well in international comparisons (better than the UK). I really don't think that setting is essential to success. Differentiation for individual pupils is another matter.

My DS left primary with the highest level for Science in his SATs and a level 3 in English. At GCSE, he got anA star in English language and a C in Chemistry. Because people change.

I wonder how you will feel about setting OP if your child isn't that capable in year eight or nine and he is in bottom sets.

Nobody is going to care what his primary sats levels were when he is filling in his UCAS form or applying for a job. They really are not a qualification or carry any real meaning.

"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. "

I definitely don't want streaming, I think in practice I do want setting, although I do understand the arguments against it. I most definitely do not want selection- I don't want my children segregated either from 23% or 77% of their peers. It is a socially damaging and divisive system.

"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.)"

The suggestion that teachers don't need to differentiate is so wrong. There can be a massive range of ablity in the dustbin bottom set. A dyslexic, EBD and non attending child all have different ablities and needs. The top set often contains one or two truely gifted chidlren and some moderately intelligent children.

Treating any class as a homogenous blob is bad teaching.

It must be a pretty dull existence for those on here whose children only mix with their school friends and have no life outside school. My DC are at a selective school where they thrive, but have numerous friends happy in other selective and non-selective schools and no schools ( Home Ed).
In the same way that I work (and most other people I imagine) in an areas that I am good at with other people who are good at the same thing, I mix with friends who have many and diverse talents in completely different fields. Two of my best friends jobs are respectively, a shift worker in a call centre, and a member of the House Of Lords. They would hate my job, and I would hate theirs. Same with DC - they go to school that suits them, and have a whole other life outside 'work'.

Hakluyt - I am not certain about the difference between streaming and setting.
I have found something in google saying that streaming means splitting pupils into groups which stay together for all lessons, while setting means they are in groups of similar ability just for certain lessons and could be in top set, say, for English and bottom set for maths. Is this correct? Thank you

@ Dad164, I only put one preference on the form because it was the only school DD would get and listing any others was futile, ergo any stats about 'first choice' are stuff and nonsense. What I wanted wasn't on the menu.

Yes, you are correct, My1Penny.

@smokepole, becausethe selection mechanisms are a crock.

• There's a little graph for one well-known boys grammar which shows no correlation between their selection test ranking and GCSE outcomes.

• All tests have what I'll call 'margins of error' and when you go to a Bell Curve and draw a vertical line for say the 25%, then it's intellectually offensive. That is because a lot of children who made it aren't very far across the threshold and it's not obvious they're any better than a lot of children who nearly made it. In-school setting has a similar problem, but in principle it's a less permanent.

• There are no obviously good selection tests.

Iamnotminterested thank you

Pique. I have just said on the 'Parallel' thread that maybe , a child who enters the 11+ could have a 'controlled assignment' entered. A controlled assignment could show their day to day academic attainment.

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

How many of the 86% put a school they don't really like as their first choice because they know that they don't stand a chance of getting a place elsewhere?

Sorry not read the whole thread but from my understanding Nicky Morgan proposed compulsory setting because too many children left primary school with L5 and above sats but did not achieve the A* and A grades in GCSEs they were capable of. One reason for this the government thinks is wide spread mixed ability teaching in schools. The evidence suggests high ability dcs do better academically when taught with dcs of similar ability while middle and lower ability dcs do better in mixed ability classes.

So depending on your dcs ability we would choose the type of classes which would most benefit our individual dcs. From a population perspective the government wants the UK to be able to produce a workforce which can compete with the best in the world hence this announcement.

I had a good experience of setting in that I was top sets for everything. However my maths wasn't great and as a result I was moved down a set. The relief I felt when the teacher was happy to explain things several times so I actually understood the concept and she would also do lots do different example questions on the board. Contrast that with being in the top set when the teacher would only explain something once and do one simple example then expect you to do lots do much harder questions. The majority of my classmates loved the challenged of being in the top set but I found it frustrating. If I hadn't been moved down a set I would never have got my Maths Olevel and that would have limited my educational choices.

PiqueABoo whilst I sympathise with your situation and you represent an excellent counter-example most people have a "real" choice and many of them get their first choice, hence I stand by my initial post.

I would be very interested to know where in the country parents have a real choice of two or three secondary schools, because they certainly don't in my city, or in most rural areas.

I agree that many people get their 'first choice' because they know there is no chance of getting the school they might actually want, so they just put down the only more-or-less acceptable school they know they stand a chance of getting.

The idea that most parents would be able to actively choose a school in order to "ensure your child is in a setted, selective or similar environment so that they do better", as you seemed to suggest in your original post, is laughable nonsense.

@Dad164, I'm not aware of anything beside anecdotal evidence for or against that. Anecdotally, in my not-small county, it certainly looks likemost people get their closest school unless they pick a distant under-subscribed (for a reason) school. It's 'selection by mortgage' here, a common phrase we all recognise because it's not uncommon.

not really in favour of "ability" setting, for the simple reason that I think "ability" is near impossible to determine.

most often what you'll end up measuring is parental background and motivation instead.

I think we ignore our brightest dcs at our peril. Just who are going to be the MPs, doctors, lawyers and professors of the future. If you are happy for every single one of them to have been privately educated then carry on saying that all the resources need to go to the bottom achieving 2% and teaching the rest of the class to the middle ability. Just don't expect a fair or just society in the future.

I think it is a salient point that when we had academic selection we had 5 successive prime ministers: Wilson, Heath, Callaghan, Thatcher, Major all educated at state grammar schools since the wholesale demise of academic selection all our elected prime ministers: Blair, Cameron have been privately educated as are most of the cabinet.

Chachah - obviously parental support, encouragement, attitude etc have some influence, but at least half of academic ability appears to be determined by genes: Same genes drive maths and reading ability.

exexpat, it's quite possible that ability is partly genetic, but that's a different point.

My point is that any system that tries to pick out children with genuine raw ability (whatever that means...) will be largely inefficient, and will probably select very large numbers of children who are not "naturally" brighter but have the right background.

I have 3 children and they are a top set child, a middle set child and a bottom set/sn child. Setting suits them all very well.
My high achieving child does categorically not need the amount of support/funding my sn child does. He is never short of work to do, but if he was he would pick up a book.
However, I appreciate I'm lucky that our secondary school is an outstanding school and is also fantastically supportive of my sn child who needs his tiny bottom sets and ta support.
Middle set child was put in top set by mistake last year and begged to leave because the pace of learning suited them much better in the middle set.
There are children with dx sn in some of the top sets and they get ta support etc too.
If setting denotes parental background etc then surely my kids would all be in the same set.

@exexpat, if you're interested in that then have a look at the book "G is for Genes: The impact of genetics on education and acheivment" (quite recent and Plomin is a co-author).

Interesting dismissive quote in that BBC report from the IoE who are kind of the ivory tower of our educational system, notoriously against non-progressive ideas. If anyone with a relatively bright child wants someone to blame for the anti-intellectualism and relative neglect of their needs then you could do much worse than look in that direction. They will fight behavioural genetics tooth and nail, but I'm expecting behavioural genetics to win.

@Chachah, any famous behavioural geneticist will tell you that.

At a non-trivial scale nuture is much more responsible than genes for differences in cognitive ability at a young age, but that turns around by the time you are an adult. 10-11 year-old are somewhere in between, so nurture is still a significant factor i.e. "background" still plays a significant role.

Speaking as a geneticist intelligence is a highly inheritable characteristic approximately 0.5 out of a possible 0.8