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

Actually the doctors we know too aren't exactly rolling in it either.Neither use private.

If these supposed top careers don't guarantee a high income heaven help the rest of us.

Ah. Just remembered I'm much older than most, so know older, richer people.

Oh to have had the presence of mind or a crystal ball at such a young age to choose a career based on sending my future children to private school. Hats off to anyone that did but all that was in my head was boys, clubbing and shopping

Jackie magazine featured high on my list too.

I do wonder reading this why us teachers bother.

With any discussion about ability settings I have noticed it is always the mums of "high attainers" who feel strongly pro-setting, and pro any selection, like grammar.

Mums of "average kids" can see both sides.

Mums of "low attainers" are dubious about it, as their kids may simply be a bit slower off the nark, but are catching up, and don't want a ceiling on their expectations.

This is the problem with being set in a low set. The low expectation becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

DS has gone to a comprehensive which does minimal setting. It gets the same results and same value add as the school down the road which sets rigorously and once you are in set 10 out of 11, that is where you'll be.

I guess it shows both systems can work, if implemented properly.

There is not ONE way of educating kids, there are various effective ways, with various pros and cons.

As I said earlier, Boney- teaching's easy- anyone could do it. After all, we teach our children all sorts of things........

What really does the value added measure do. Does it benefit children or is it a statistical way of feigning perceived improve the challenge

For what it is worth I have not come across any teacher that has stretched my children. His primary teachers could not hide their contempt when they realised he was applying to a grammar schools.

Setting is great. We can put like for like cohorts together. I resented that my ds was a buddy to a poor performer in his class. Surely that is the role of the teacher and his assistant.

I am against setting as a rule as ime at secondary school, in which the year I was in was split into 2 bands (A band and B band ) I was a B bander and basically felt like the school told me every day for 5 years that I was thick.

In terms of labelling and self esteem it was hugely damaging.

I have gone onto qualify as nurse and have a degree but this was very much despite my schooling rather than supported by it.

Ime all the resources were given to the able children and the rest of us were pretty much given up on

I really hope that my dds experiences are different to mine.

I don't have much secondary school experience just yet as my dc1 has just started year 7. But she was very much abundant during primary school re math because she was in bottom set right from the start. I think it depends on the purpose of the settings in different school and especially the HT's and teachers' attitudes to settings. I mean whether they just separate the pupils to make work easier for themselves or truly want to close the ability gaps between the groups.

Can anyone point to that middle + high achievers = good research?

I ask because as Prof. Becky apparently just discovered (see upstream post yesterday), there is 'surprisingly little' in this aspect of our education system: the most recent significant stuff is from last century undertaken by the IoE, an organisation which isn't perceived as neutral in this debate.

You can find more recent meta-analysis which is largely based on foreign bits and bobs, but people I trust who have looked at some of that stuff tend to say a lot is dodgy and biased in one direction or another.

I don't think we have any rigorous research.

I don't think we have any rigorous research.

I totally agree, teachers are very nervous of any kind of trial.

"With any discussion about ability settings I have noticed it is always the mums of "high attainers" who feel strongly pro-setting, and pro any selection, like grammar."

I'm the mum of high attainers and I am strongly anti selection and anti streaming. I am still unsure about setting.

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.

You´ve got it, OP.

I´m a teacher. I used to believe firmly in setting, but with experience I´ve come to think the opposite way. HOWEVER mixed ability groups work well only if the class size is reasonable and the teacher is given adequate time to plan work for all of the different abilities. The latter, in particular, is sadly not happening in any school I know of at the moment with a few exceptions such as Eton, Harrow, Rugby.

In addition minimum targets and expected progress are rubbish and allow the top students to slack off without punishment and those at the bottom, for whatever reason, to work their socks off for no reward.

"teachers are very nervous of any kind of trial."

It's not teachers preventing the research.

(she..., yes most teenagers are thinking about clubbing and boys. I was in the library forming a life plan, future earnings, large family, reading feminist tracts and heaps of other books. I am not like most other people but without doubt a huge part of why I am quite well off is because of all that planning and the most important thing of all - that thing they test toddlers for in that famous test - putting off what you want today to have more tomorrow - deferred gratification - one of the determinants in how well women and men do in life. I seem to have it in spades.

I am also the oldest child and they tend to do best in terms of career and earnings and that is so far similar for my oldest child too)

Many people want a balance and that is just fine.

We are all different.

Not everybody is driven by big earnings and what that brings(thankfully).

I have read quite a few state primary school ofsted reports and ISA inspection reports (when we moved house and had to consider areas and schools) and there was a recurring theme in at least 50% of the reports that 'the most able children are not adequately catered for and the work provided does not always match their ability'. I didn't see any which stated that the least able were not well catered for.

Some of the posters on here are stating the opposite and that the most able receive the most input so maybe it's just the schools in the areas that I considered moving to.
Whatever the reason for this disparity, experience shapes our choices and my experience has made me favour setting and selection.

That's it exactly missunreasonable. High trainers are not stretched enough.

"With any discussion about ability settings I have noticed it is always the mums of "high attainers" who feel strongly pro-setting, and pro any selection, like grammar."

I've got a high attainer in academic subjects, and I'm very anti selection and streaming, and relatively neutral about setting (dd's school does a bit of both).

In fact, the two areas where I wish dd was setted - but isn't - are both 'non-academic' subjects; PE, where she's definitely a low attainer, and tech, where it's not so much about levels as those dc who have used tools before (inc dd who is v. keen on woodwork & does loads of making out of school) , and those who haven't.

"I didn't see any which stated that the least able were not well catered for."

Interesting - I wonder if at least in part, it's because the least able are less able to be vocal about their needs?

Interesting - I wonder if at least in part, it's because the least able are less able to be vocal about their needs?

Or because SENCO involvement ensures that they get the additional funds and ILPs that they need, therefore they are adequately catered for.

With any discussion about ability settings I have noticed it is always the mums of "high attainers" who feel strongly pro-setting, and pro any selection, like grammar.

This is probably very true, but then you have to think about what the reason for that might be.

Rightly, no one ever suggests that low or middle attainers be given the extra support they need, no one ever suggests that pupil premium money shouldn't go to pupils who need extra support because of their parents income, so the Mums of those children have nothing to try to defend. But when so many people disagree with setting, or G&T programmes, or grammar schools, then it's natural that people whose children benefit from these things are going to feel defensive of them when they are attacked.

The less able don't need to be vocal because most of the focus is on floor standards and so many talk for them: largely politicians and random half-wits demanding schools solve all our social problems (so they don't have to).

When DD's primary school went from Ofsted 'Good' to 'Satisfactory' the biggest issue in the report was low ability boys and maths.

I see Ofsted are talking about NEETs today.

I do also think that those of us with high attaining dc tend to be high attainers ourselves (whether that be nature or nurture) and can make a good and clear case for their needs. Obviously children with full on SN often have very vocal and dedicated parents who also do this.

But, just for example, I have a couple of friends where I can see their dc are just getting a bad deal, they didn't had a great experience of the education system, find teachers intimidating, and aren't able to go in and be the pushy parent that their dc maybe needs to get that bit of extra help.