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 think setting should be compulsory at secondary in all subjects as soon as possible.

Waiting til year 9 is stupid. Imagine being in a mixed ability French class for two years ! Seriously pointless for all pupils of all abilities.

Primary is slightly trickier as you need quite a sizeable cohort to get critical mass at the top and bottom ends.

DC school had an intake of 60 which lends itself to four sets. But most primaries are much smaller.

Props to all parents who have children who have LDs or who find school hard. I realise it's very tough.

What did you do, missunreasonable? I'm thinking about getting a tutor as the older one approaches GCSEs but I don't know if that's the best approach. It will bloody kill me if he misses out on a decent uni place because of half-arsed schooling. (Assuming he wants to go to uni of course)

No problem preciousbane. I am angry tbh! Probably angry with myself because I'm stuck in that principles vs own children situation. Although rationally, i think there are loads of non-academic benefits to attending a comprehensive and I try to keep reminding myself of those. I just wish our local state schools were better

Every child should be encouraged to reach their full potential

This is the point isn't it? I'm so lucky that my dd's primary sat different abilities together - we had a lot of children who didn't speak English upon arrival so there were a spectrum of abilities within the class but all were catered to.

OP I feel your pain as I have had words with one or two teachers over the years as my dd was helping the teacher with chores when she finished her work!! But that was nipped in the bud and dealt with.

Of our three local secondaries, one sets from year 8 , one streams, one is mixed ability except English and maths.

I went to grammar school which set for GCSE years. There was a range of ability in the clad and I was brought and got bored. Very bored. I actually went off the rails a bit.

I recently spent a few months in a secondary school with a bad reputation. The ability range in the class was enormous. There were children with learning difficulties who couldn't word in complete sentences so needed activities like sentences fillers (fill in the blanks) to access the curriculum. The brought children could easily write 2000 words on the same topic. The teaches really struggled to give lessons that meant the m majoruty of kids were learning. lessons were full of low level disruption.

I was horrified. But got told these were good lessons.

How do higher ability kids do at your ds's new school, pink?

The problem about setting as soon as possible is that it quickly becomes prescriptive. Children think of themselves as 'bottom set material' and teachers think of them that way too. It's hard for children at the bottom to rise, and children at the top tend to stay there.

And then, what you end up with is a case of 'I'm alright Jack, pull up the ladder'.

And while research shows that setting by ability advantages the brightest, it really, really disadvantages those of lower ability, who don't stay level in terms of their progress, but actually fall behind. If you set in every subject you are really determining that the lower attaining pupils will make less progress across the board.

Setting appeals to those with a fixed mindset who believe that intelligence is innate and that effort cannot make much difference to achievement. People with a growth mindset realise that children have control over their destiny. If a lazy child matures and decides to work hard then he/she can do well.

One school near me decides whether a child sits GCSEs early, GCSEs at normal time or does a BTEc on a computerised CATs test sat on the first day of term. I feel its wrong to put an eleven year old on the scrap heap in this way.

OP, I think you're talking about setting in primary schools? I'm wondering how that would work given the numbers of children per year in most schools.

In dd's primary (as I think is standard) they sat at different tables for each subject, which meant that in some subjects (maths / language) they were giving work differentiated by table. With 1 form per year (in fact 1 form covering 2 years in dd's school) - I don't see how they could have done more setting than that, as there simply wouldn't have been the number of children.

Your dc's school may not do enough differentiation - and that was definitely a problem at dd's primary once they got into KS2 - but I don't think setting would be a feasible answer except in huge city primaries.

That's the crux of it thought isn't it niminy - it basically comes down to a choice between what's best for those at the lower end of the attainment level, and what's best for those at the top. And while I'm a lefty (i realise I don't sound like one...) and believe in extra help for those who need it, it's bloody hard to watch your own children being actively disadvantaged by a policy. And my anecdotal experience is that it results in kids at the upper end of the attainment range leaving the state system altogether. I do live in an affluent area though which probably compounds the problem, in that lots of families have the means to pay fees.

Here's the admissions criteria for my local free school hakluyt - I can't actually see anything too bad in there but maybe it's buried somewhere!

Thank you for the badge Hakluyt, I shall wear it with pride as I haven't had a reward badge since visiting the dentist as a child

Pinksquidgy DS with SLD goes to a special school. We moved house to make sure that he got into his current special school at senior level as the special senior school in our old area was not suitable and wouldn't have met our sons needs adequately. We had to fight at primary school to get him into a very specialist unit within a special school as we were originally offered a more general special school place which wasn't appropriate. His current school is fab and he is happy.

Our DS with good academic ability has been in the private sector for the past two and a half years. He was at an ofsted good school which got good results but they were useless at stretching the most able children (not just my opinion, the last two ofsted inspections agree). We had taken the school to task several times on the issue of the work being too easy and targeted at the middle and bottom ability groups. All too often our son was left reading or colouring because he had finished his work and was bored. I checked his homework everyday and the level was always around two years behind what he was actually capable of doing (his classroom work was the same). After a year of frustrated meetings and being told that we were not being realistic we looked elsewhere. A private school offered us a very generous scholarship which made the fees just about affordable with a struggle. The classes are small and each child works at a level appropriate for them and the brightest children are stretched through a lot of sideways extension.
Sadly, it is only a private primary school and we are now weighing up options for senior school. The teachers are certain that DS will get a scholarship to an academically selective school but we don't want to rely too heavily on that.
We do have a reasonable state senior school nearby which has a good reputation for stretching the most able pupils but it is not quite in our catchment. I suppose we will just have to see what happens over the next six months and then assess what we do at that stage.

niminy there is no need for that at all.

Setting should be flexible with DC moving regularly and teachers reassessing.

Setting should be a tool to get the very best out of all pupils.

I have seen if work superbly well for both my DC.

I agree with Reallytired. So much of what Nicky Morgan is saying is based on party politic rhetoric and nothing based on evidence on what actually works. From my experience of primary and secondary education with my own children, all pupils are set work according to their ability. I think SAT's results are often a misleading. My daughter left primary with a 3a in Numeracy and was working at level 5 by Christmas in her secondary school. Children can make massive leaps and strides in a short space of time and can also plateau in their ability. I would not have wanted my daughter to languish in a lower ability class in year 7 when clearly she had progress to make. Let teachers do their job.

That's interesting about primaries not having enough kids to set and it does make sense I suppose.

Sounds like I need to sharpen my elbows and go make friends with the senior managament team at older DC's new school... I have no idea what their policies are. (I realise this sounds negligent but we were always going to get this school - we had no choice at all, it's five minutes away and we don't get into catchment for any other. Older DC is 156th on the waiting list for a better secondary that's about three miles away...)

My children's high school conducted an experiment on setting one year.

Instead of setting the children in Maths, after the first half term, they continued in their form classes for the whole year.

The results were surprising. Everyone, across the board did better, not just lower or middle abilities. Even the sceptical teachers were converted.

However, the range was too much for the teachers to cope with, so they were setted for year 8. I don't know if they continued this with subsequent years.

It is a good school with a strong ethos. It used to be a secondary modern that prided itself on giving pupils good life and learning skills, which they have carried on. They do not set in other subjects, and have good results and an excellent OFSTED.

Vanessa is about to discuss streaming on her show now - 721 on Freeview or listen live on Radio London

And while research shows that setting by ability advantages the brightest, it really, really disadvantages those of lower ability, who don't stay level in terms of their progress, but actually fall behind. If you set in every subject you are really determining that the lower attaining pupils will make less progress across the board.

I think this is the crux of the matter. Setting advantages the brightest while mixed ability is better for those of lower ability. I really wish i had the answer but there must be a model where neither group is disadvantaged or held back by the other.

"One school near me decides whether a child sits GCSEs early, GCSEs at normal time or does a BTEc on a computerised CATs test sat on the first day of term. I feel its wrong to put an eleven year old on the scrap heap in this way."

Scrap heap???? Maybe that's a really good argument against setting if that's a common attitude...........

OP, in small primaries there is no way they could run separate classes for every child, whether it was high or low ability. They are all grouped and their work differentiated though according to ability though, surely you know that?

I absolutely agree that teachers should be left to teach bear - if they are good teachers. My younger DC has had some bloody brilliant class teachers and I actually have fewer concerns about him as a result. But my older one had some frankly shocking idiot teachers who just didn't know what to do with him at all.

I guess mixed-ability teaching requires a bloody talented teacher. And so many of the (very young, often NQT) teachers at this school are just not bloody up to it.

It's also a problem with primaries in that if you've got a mediocre/rubbish class teacher, that's an entire year of your child's education up in smoke. At least different subject teachers in secondaries mean that one rubbish teacher isn't a whole-year disaster.

Pink- have you looked at how the higher ability kids in your ds's school do?