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

Nobody said anything about being a bad mother but the fact remains kids who get a good nights sleep and read a lot will do better than if they go to school,knackered and read very little..As a teacher I have seen the impact of lack of sleep and reading a lot.

If both are deemed to be seen as characteristics of hot housing frankly it is rather worrying.

Not having a library card != not reading.

Didn't say that either.

Meh, you implied it. I said my kids didn't have a library card, you countered with (reasonable) statements about reading very little being Not Good. Proclaiming possession of library cards as being an example of helping your kids at school isn't very helpful to parents who live in places where libraries are non existent and inaccessible - this is one of those occasions where I would agree that middle class mores are used as a yardstick for optimal behaviour without considering whether they are applicable to everyone.

Rabbit, in terms of bedtime I am still struggling to get my children to bed by 7:30pm even after eleven years of trying very hard however light out by 9pm definitely. We haven't visited the library for several weeks now even my 8 yr old has been nagging at me to take her library to return the books and borrow more books.

Um libraries aren't preserved for the middle classes.Last I heard they could be found in most places,certainly in many of the poorer areas I've taught in.

The phrase splitting hairs comes to mind.

I think most would be well aware as to what I meant.

The current system is not working. I have one very bright child, the class goes too slow so she's bored and one child that's not so bright and the class goes to fast so he struggles (they're twins). It would make life so much easier if they were streamed then my son wouldn't feel like giving up because he's at the bottom of the class.

Dodo, that's not necessarily the system, it may be the teacher.

Fwiw, my ds1 is negatively affected by streaming, as although he is bright, he is not in the top number of children designated as 'top set'. So even though he is capable of more challenging work he is in middle sets for some subjects where he coasts, because they only have a designated number of top set places.

As mentioned earlier, I think the optimum is to have a set for those who are struggling, but try and keep the middle children as challenged as possible, as that will improve their outcomes.

Certainly for my ds he would do better in a set that was mixed top/middle children as he's right on the borderline. My younger kids are all more 'top set' but I don't think they need to be split off (apart from specific things like preparing for L6 SaTs etc).

I was top set for all subjects and was able to coast along and the schools wouldn't push to improve as their focus was on getting the lower ability kids up to an acceptable level. As I was never pushed, when I finally got to something that actually did challenge me, because I'd never really been taught how to handle the challenge, struggled to cope and barely scraped a low pass. I think setting is important, but along with that, the schools need to ensure that where it is wanted, individual pupils are pushed as much as possible.

Setting is a practical impossibility in all but a small minority of primnary schools simply bexcause 1 class per year is the average.

Yes, in urban centres there are some bigger schools. But that is counterbalanced by the very small schools out tin the country where you might get an entire key satge taught in 1 class.#

So the very large majority of primary school children are in, by defimnition, non-streamed settings.

My widest ever spread in a class was P6 to level 4. Every child made good progress, although for the pre-verbal child it was measured in extremely tiny increments!

Wrt 'hothousing' and setting:
What I was saying is that 'ability' is conflated with performance at age 4. It is really difficult to test for ability at this age without being confounded by prior learning in a child, which in some cases amounts to hothousing. It is also really difficult to justify setting of children in schools where one style of learning (ability to approach subjects through books and a combination of reading and direct instruction) is preferred over others and one sort of intelligence (academic intelligence) is valued and catered to over others.

Rabbit -- My own observation is that poor teaching plays a huge role in making children 'bad at maths'. Maths is one subject that needs good teaching, and science to a lesser degree but certainly by comparison with reading (that a child can improve upon at home even with little input from parents if he or she is interested enough) math and science need a high degree of teacher input.

My DCs went to an elementary school with no streaming except in maths for the last three years (age 11, 12, 13). They went on to a high school with tracks that catered for interest and learning style and type of intelligence, as opposed to streaming according to perceived intelligence (really performance). A placement test suggested a track for each student and parents were welcome to discuss the results and ignore them if they wished. Maths and science placement were linked because of the level of mathematical understanding and operation needed in the different science tracks.

Here's an example of an approach to ability from the school academic catalogue:
[Course number] '932 Project Scholar
Prerequisite: Freshmen only as referred by 8th grade teachers, principals, and assistant principals
2 semesters; Not for credit
This program provides daily academic support for freshmen who score well
on standardized tests and possess some gifted student attributes but whose 8th grade performance makes enrollment in honors level freshman courses questionable. Students who are recommended for this program must enroll in one or more of English A, Biology A, Intermediate Algebra A, or Algebra. A daily period of support provided by an English, mathematics or science teacher is then built into the recommended student’s freshman schedule. Students may get assistance from any one of the three Project Scholar teachers. The teachers provide tutoring in English, math, and science and monitor the student’s academic progress in all courses on a weekly basis. The Project Scholar support period takes the place of the freshman study hall.'

DS, who was much fonder of maths and science than English, took this course one year:
'English Division
178/2 LIT: War and Literature
Open to seniors
1 semester; 1 credit
War is a human phenomenon and a necessary part of academic study.
Teachers can humanize this phenomenon through a study of historical literature that offers a lens through which a reader can examine a multitude of perspectives. By studying the literature of war, students explore soldiers’ dilemmas, personal responsibility versus taking orders, the aims and consequences of imperialism, and what happens to an individual in combat.'

It was right up his alley.
DS never willingly cracked open a work of literature except 'Goodnight Mister Tom'. In his first year of university (in the US) he was required to do English Lit and composition classes and sailed through with As. DS could read (and absorb) technical manuals and material on WW2 artillery and planes until the cows came home. He had a bee in his bonnet throughout his teen years about literature of the Jane Austen/ Shakespeare variety. When he got to university he saw the need to do the required work, put his ears back, and did it. It was a matter of becoming mature enough to see that.

Thanks to excellent teaching in high school and the availability of summer school where she leapfrogged to higher level courses, DD3 is on track to embrace honours calculus next year and is making noises about applying to engineering schools. Her elementary maths teacher would be most surprised to hear this because she had DD3 pegged as 'maybe not really a maths person'. DD3 was in the middle set, where she got As and Bs all year, but school policy did not allow any moving up or down because the higher set had different books and only 17 had been ordered .

It seems to me that when a student who is willing to work and well able to work and has great results to show for it in English, History and all the other subjects but who seems really frustrated to the point of giving up when it comes to maths, she has a poor teacher.

I perceive a willingness on the part of parents to buy the idea that some people are maths people and some are not, or that it takes a certain type of brain to do well in maths. I see this especially on the part of parents of girls. There are a lot of cultural and gender-related myths about maths imo. DD3 is one of only four girls in her honours physics class. She is the only girl from her elementary school on her particular maths track. I have had conversations with parents of friends of hers who think I am some sort of foreign freak (said in a good natured way) for having my DDs in maths and science at the level they have all done maths and science. There was never any questioning of DS's track.

PineneedlesSoup:
As a teacher I have seen the impact of lack of sleep and reading a lot.
As a child I was permanently sleep deprived because of reading for hours under the blanket every night, so I think that can cut both ways..

It is also really difficult in Yr3 to set accurately according to ability because imo teachers really do not appreciate the level of parental input that happens to this age and beyond in many homes.

And I also think that boys get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to maths setting in the primary years. This is just a suspicion of mine and I don't know if there's any research to back it up, but I do remember seeing reports to the effect that the way maths tends to be taught supports the way boys learn maths to a greater extent than they way girls learn (it favours the 'individual boy vs maths book' style as opposed to the 'girls in groups together tackling maths' style -- i.e. individual vs collaborative).

Sorry I don't agree.Hothousing at 4! Maybe in Kensington but ime you don't see many hothoused kids at 4 in your average primary.

You may see some who have good book knowledge having been read to a lot,kids whose parents have clearly done a lot of counting,talking and art activities,kids who can write their name having gone to a good pre- school but sorry not a lot of hot housing.All parents should surely be doing such activities.If they're not then support is needed not criticism of those who do provide such activities.

Occasionally you see parents who have attempted to teach kids how to form letters which you more often than not have to re teach due to incorrect formation or a focus on capitals.

Also re parental input surely you have to look at where kids are.If kids have grasped a concept than frankly does it matter how they got there?It may be extra help in school,help at home or pure grit from the child itself. Surely if they're competent they need to get moved onto the next level regardless.

Re the lack of sleep several studies have shown it has a significant impact in lowering the achievement of pupils in school across all ages.

Hothousing was perhaps an overstatement, or maybe it means something different to you from what it means to me, but imo teaching at home plays a huge role in the early primary years. Many teachers give themselves more credit for children's progress than they are really due. Many parents do in fact know what they are doing when it comes to supporting their children at home. How do you know that the children who form their letters correctly and use lower case letters appropriately have not had a huge amount of parental help?

(Please note that no, I am not saying that anyone can teach because we have all been to school, but parents are not morons for the most part).

I am not criticising parents who provide a great environment or who support their child's academic progress. I am criticising the conflation of 'performance' that is often due to parental input with 'ability' or learning style or type of intelligence, and a tendency to see a child's progress as down to teacher input, when it may well be that parents have had a major role in that progress.

Also re parental input surely you have to look at where kids are.If kids have grasped a concept than frankly does it matter how they got there?It may be extra help in school,help at home or pure grit from the child itself. Surely if they're competent they need to get moved onto the next level regardless.

This is the core of why setting according to 'ability' is a sham.
It is not ability. It is setting according to reaching a certain standard of performance, and sadly this mostly means setting according to parental interest and willingness to put in the hours at home to make progress possible.

How is the role of the teacher designed in an educational environment where the teacher can't distinguish between the results of her efforts and those of parents? How can you tell what to teach or how to teach it if you don't have a meaningful way of understanding who is having problems with the material?

Understanding what the problems are in the material that is presented is important. If the parents who are interested in results are tackling the problems themselves, and the teacher isn't concerned about how the children arrive at the end result of progress as long as they get there, are the students whose parents do not have the time or the inclination being relegated to bottom sets because of their parents not having the time or the resources to help them?

My dd recently went up 2 maths groups because of the extra help she and others had in school.Ime those without involved parents aren't left but are helped in school.

If there is continuous assessment and fluidity with setting I don't have a problem. When there is zero fluidity and not enough assessment then I do.

Take SATs in year 2 for example there are children working above level 3 at the end of year 2, but because SATs only go up to level 3 the school don't really know the extent of a child's ability. Also so many of the years repeat work over and over all the way up to GCSE.
There are so many flaws with the BC its outdated for the modern world.
I do see benefits of mixed ability classes for all other lessons except maths, English and Science IMO these should be streamed much earlier than present.

dodo,

As the KS1 levels at the end of Y2 are all teacher assessed (they can take tests as part of reaching a judgement, but what matters is the teacher assessment), then they are not 'capped' at L3. i have taught a couple of children who were L4s at the end of Y2, usually in Maths as that does not require the same maturity as reading or writing.

DD2 was L4 in maths and literacy at the end of Y2 however it didn't do her much good since she spent Y3 on a 'top table' doing work with kids a full level below her and being sent home extension work which seemed more like a punishment to her than a benefit. She completely stagnated in Y3 and began to loath school as a result (her Y3 teacher disapproved of the fact that her Y2 teacher had 'let her get so far ahead' and seemed to see it as her mission in life to hold DD2 back until a 'viable group' of other kids had caught up with her).

I'm slightly late to the debate, but wanted to chime in. I'm a HoD of English at a state comp. Here, English is taught in mixed ability groups from A*-G.

Like Teacher, we teach to the top and provide support to help lower attainers overcome their barriers to learning. We have outstanding results far and away higher than the national average, including about 60% A/A*

Reviewing the data and it is clear that although a lot of resources and interventions go towards the low attainers and those on FSM, they still aren't progressing as fast as the middle and high attainers (though faster than in sets).

Middle and high learners, on the whole, are making 4 or even 5, levels of progress from KS2. Low attainers average at 3 (some only 2).

In mixed ability groups I have had children arrive at the school on a 3C and leave with an A. This just was not happening when we taught in sets.

Still more intervention needs to happen to bring the lower attainers up to 4 levels of progress, but our high attainers are flying and our middle attainers with them.

I would be seriously angry if the government forced us back to setting.

Sounds like a true win/win arrangement, JennyC.

It is, Math, which is why you'll always find me biting my tongue on open evenings when prospective parents rant at me about our grouping policy! Some simply refuse to believe that it works, even with the data in front of them.

There is an enormous amount of anxiety about being 'dragged down', a huge insecurity, and unwillingness to believe in anything but the dog eat dog philosophy.