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

Just a funny little post script to this long discussion. My yr6 daughter came home today and volunteered that they were given their math tables for this year. I asked what her table was like and who was on it. She wasn't happy that they had mixed ability tables (No one has pointed out that the tables were "set" in past years, no one has pointed out that they aren't "set" now. Kids just seem to know.) She said the lesson was "boring" and that she doesn't expect to be doing anything new and they will all be covering the same old stuff "again and again."

So not really a ringing endorsement from the student, but we'll see. I think her teacher this year is a really good one. Loved by the kids, respected by the parents, good results year after year. If he can't make it work, then I wouldn't expect most other teachers to pull it off in real life either. I'll report back in 9 months!

Sometimes a teacher will review a little at the start of the new year before attacking the new year's material -- maybe that is what is happening in your DD's class?

I also think when parents ask what a table is like and who else is on it, most children will figure out that this is something a parent is interested in and will deduce the reason why if setting is part of classroom life.

I can only compare the two schools that my dcs attended. The first one is obsessed with settings. Each set has it's own classroom. So very rarely children get move up or down unless one's parent/s complain about the unfairness. As separate set is given different input every day & week so the longer you leave the situation the bigger the gap between the sets. The primary school years have been very stressful for many children and parents. Many parents say they will not recommend that school to anyone.
However the second school that my dc2 attends at the moment it uses mixture of both methods. Mon - Wed mixed abilities and then Thu and Fri children are put into three sets. So every child is given a chance to be in any of the sets depending on how they get on with the topic for the week. So the able children get challenges they need and those less able get extra helps. Also any learning issues can be highlighted and dealt with sooner rather than keep leaving it for weeks, terms, years and then just never. As I said before the atmosphere of this school is so much happier for the parents and children. Also their ks2 results are far better than the other school.

ReallyTired Your son could also use the website conjuguemos.com to revise German verbs (and vocab.) It is simple and fun as you choose what you want to be "tested" on and a time limit e.g. 2 mins., 5 mins. then the % of correct answers is updated on screen each time you input one.

Our education system is failing bright children and children who struggle.
There are so many different factors at play, one being that the BC is outdated from year 1. Children are being taught from a younger age so when they start school at 5 some children can already read and do simple maths;this is where the problem starts.
Parents start to teach children out of school in preparation for SATs in year 2, Other parents leave their child's education to the school.
By year 3 there is a massive divide in ability. The children on level 1 SATs cant keep up with the children on level 3 Sats and the level 3 Sats children are bored.
Children should be streamed from year 3 by ability that way the brightest children can go at a faster pace and the children that struggle go at a pace that suits them.
There should be clinics during break and summer schools available.
We need to raise the education standards in this country....for everyone.

dodo - I think the opposite, I think the brightest children are identified and challenged, the children who struggle are supported, and it is the ones in the middle who are lost in the system, do 'all right', but don't really maximise their own potential.

They would do better to be with the most able, to challenge them, not just allowed to coast.

Looking at SATs as an example, there is a big incentive to get L5/6, and a big incentive to get as many children onto L4b, from a league table point of view. But where is the incentive to move up within a level? (ie 5c to 5a)?

If a child is sitting on a 4b, it may be perceived as 'too much effort' to push them up to a 5c, so that child may just sit there on a 4b, when in fact they would flourish given the extra challenge.

That's my experience anyway.

LilyBolero I agree with you. That s why I view the league table as more a disruption rather than help. When my dcs were toddlers I was told by the preschool staff that I shouldn't teach my children any letters and sound and numbers stuff. However when school started many children already knew how to write simple stuff and numbers. I regreted I d listened to these people.

I agree with Dodo. The system is failing the bright children who are never expected to achieve their best because they already do better than most.
And the ones who are struggling.

The whole system is set up for the middle-lower middle children. You need to achieve to get x level, after that it's just a bonus.
And god forbid that you have a child with some difficulties (Just see what is happening to children with SN/SEN).

Fwiw at my dcs school the children who are bright are 'identified' but no specific work is given to them, no extension etc... Not until they are in Y6 and then children who are aiming for L6 at the SATS will get some support

The thing is, league tables / Ofsted USED to work like that.

Now, school measurement is ALL about progress. So a child who gets a level 3 in KS1 is expected to reach at least a L5 in KS3, and for a school to be considered good or above, a fair number of them MUST get Level 6.

Equally, those children who got level 1s in KS1 is expected to get at least level 3s, and for the school to be regarded as good or better should get into the Level 4s.

So a school can't get away with 'teaching to the middle' or neglecting more able children, or SEN children, because ALL groups of children are expected to make better than 'expected' (2 levels per key stage) progress.

Equally, DS and DD, who arrive at secondary with Level 6s in Maths, have KS3 targets of 8A - because they need to achieve that to be seen to have made above expected progress. 8c ion Emnglish, because they arrived at Level 5 etc.

What teacherwith2kids said. This is a big change, and one that I think will make a huge difference both to how individual kids are encouraged to do their best and to how schools are viewed.

I've seen some really interesting modelling that shows some schools with middle class intakes plummeting down the league tables, and some schools with disadvantaged intakes rocketing to the top. If the league tables are constructed to show which schools enable their pupils to make the most progress, they're likely to end up looking very different from the way the look now. It'll be fascinating to see what effect that has on parental preference.

teacher how on earth are they suppose to achieve that in a class where you have children working at level 3 and children working at a level 6? How can you do maths and expect progress above 2 sub levels, all that wo streaming?

When the dc was in Y2, they only evaluated up to a certain level (was it 2a??). I know dc1 was way over that at that time. But he still was assessed at that level. What will be taken into account for his KS2 levels? His SATS levels or his 'real' levels? How can you tell what are his 'real' levels when you don't assess over a certain one?

In a strange way, I can see how easily a school in a very deprived area will have an 'easier' time than one in a middle class are where the parents will automatically do some 'work' with their dcs and said children will arrive in reception knowing a lot more.

I think it's rather disingenuous to suggest that schools in deprived areas will have an easier time! Surely the point is that they have a much, much harder job, and I think it's good news that the accountability system is moving further towards recognising this, and rewarding them when they achieve excellent results with a challenging intake.

...Children should be streamed from year 3 by ability...

Dodo -- The only problem is, it's not ability that you described there. It's the visible results of early hothousing.

Math - sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't.

I agree Mathanxiety,

To be seen as bright under the currant system you just need to know more than other children of the same age. It doesn't necessarily mean they are brighter.
The divide will only get bigger with the tutoring culture unless schools start catering for all abilities.

I certainly don't agree with streaming from year 3. IMO to a large extent you would be streaming by poverty. Great - the children are already disadvantaged so kick them down even further.

Nothing annoys me so much as the assumption that poor kids are not bright.

I wasn't trying to imply that poor children weren't bright.
What I was saying was that in any streaming system it's the better off whose children get into the top streams. Perhaps because of those middle class sharp elbows.

Rabbit I agree with you. The problem with this country's culture is that if a child with good literate skills is regarded as brighter than the one with good practical skills. Many poorer kids would have to do a lot of things for themselves from earlier age and even their siblings and make do with less as compare to their middle class counterparts.

IME it's the brighter children who get into the top streams and some of them will have well to do backgrounds and some of them won't and most of them will have average backgrounds for wherever they live.

Also IME 'middle class sharp elbows' are a myth. Some 'middle class' people are pushy - but that's because they are pushy, not because they are 'middle class'. Some 'working class' people are pushy as well, as are some posh people. And plenty of others, from all walks of life, are not. Attributing the degree to which a person is pushy or not to their income bracket (I'm assuming you are defining class by income here since you mentioned poverty) is a bit reductive.

"Middle class sharp elbows"

"Hot housing"

Sorry ime hearing your kids read,ensuring early nights,providing a place to work,giving high expectations as regards trying your best,ensuring homework is done and tables learnt,restricting screen time,talking and providing kids with a library card all make a huge impact on how kids do in school.

Is this hot housing and sharp elbows in action?

I have seen families from all income brackets provide it.

vkyyu - not sure I agree with you, maths (and to a lesser extent science) ability seems to be the key differentiator where I live. A child who doesn't read much, doesn't write well and isn't particularly articulate but who is a whizz at maths (and science) tends to be regarded as much 'brighter' than a highly articulate bookworm who is poor at maths/science. Even if the bookish child with maths/science challenges is top set/top table/otherwise acknowledged as good at English/literacy. Because maths and science are the 'brainy subjects'. Whether or not this is related to gender issues isn't clear. I'm sure this isn't reflected everywhere, but I'm equally sure that the emphasis on triple science being the holy grail for a 'bright child' doesn't help.

My kids don't have library cards (we didn't have a library where we live for a couple of years, while it was being rebuilt). They also don't go to bed particularly early. I'm clearly a Bad Mother.

I think, once you've had kids involved in music or dance you get a whole new perspective on what 'pushy' actually is. And most ordinary parents are very far away from fitting that description (luckily for everyone).