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

To be frank, pinksquidgy, it doesn't seem to me that your DC has done very badly at all at primary if he's left with 5/6 SATs there isn't any higher level he could have got to. Also, I think parents tend to over-estimate how interesting school should be my own school years were full of boredom, and isn't that really just what school is like? I'm not saying that bright children shouldn't be stretched, of course, but actually doesn't most of that stretching in reality take place at home?

The real problem in your area, also being frank here, seems to me to be social selection. There isn't any correlation between having the money to pay for private education and innate intelligence! There is, however, a well-known correlation between having lots of support at home, and lots of money to pay for interesting out-of-school extension and enrichment activities, and higher attainment. Perhaps that is what is happening?

When you have a situation in which one group are disadvantaged by something that will help the other group, eg setting which disadvantages the lower end while helping the higher end, what's the best response? Surely it is simply wrong to say 'we must privilege what helps the cleverest at the expense of the others'? Do we have a duty to at least look at how to meet the needs of both groups?

And I think that applies to us as parents, too. It's not just our own DCs against the world. The way that society nurtures those who have less says a huge amount about the kind of world my DCs will grow up into -- and that is as important as their own academic attainment.

setting is a bit of a pain for the middle achievers too - they spout all sorts of lovely words about "flexibility" but after a couple of terms of setting things can no longer be flexible - the top set have rushed ahead, have learned in depth compared to those even in the next set down - if someone moves up - where do they catch up on that work - on the depth?

my girls are both top set for everything, but have very different experiences too - DD13 is top quarter of top set and coasts a bit - is still not stretched and has a bit of an "I know it all" attitude because of that, DD12 is bottom quarter of top set and constantly feels pressure to be better, puts pressure on herself too - to just stay where she is (she could be bottom student in the whole school and as long as she gave of her best it would not matter a jot to us)

Mixed ability teaching requires rigorous planning. NQT's would have observations from the head and a day of professional development. If you ever have concerns, talk to the head.

I live in a very middle class area in the Midlands and their are many bright children at our primary school (where I work as a TA and Midday). I do think parents seem to have a notion that the lower ability children are constantly receiving "special attention" at the expense of higher ability children. Talk to the head about what works for your children, In my opinion however, rigorous prescriptive setting is not right for every chld. Many children have not reached their potential at the end of year 6.

yep you're right about social selection niminy. Without realising it I've probably chosen to live in one of the very worst places to send your children comprehensive. Most of the families that take school/attainment seriously don't even consider state secondaries around here, because most of them (not all, I do realise that) have the money to go elsewhere.

It's entirely possible that there are a bunch of kids from lower-income households who will pop up in the new secondary and put my DC to shame, clever-wise. I will genuinely be over the moon if that's the case, it's exactly what he needs.

I think what I'm railing about really is that there are some schools with a really ingrained culture of 'oh, that'll do - these kids aren't aiming at uni anyway'. And unfortunately our local schools fall into that bracket.

Thanks for explaining what you did missunreasonable. I hope both your DCs are thriving.

hakluyt how would I get that info (about how higher-achieving kids do at the secondary)? Is it separated out in OFSTED reports?

It sounds like poor differentiating is/was the problem.

My dcs primary was hammered by ofsted for not differentiating enough and they have massively improved.

Ofsted expect every child to show progress so the most able should be improving on their own terms just as much as the less able.

Is setting really the solution? My eldest is one of the most able but I actually think he's better in mixed groups, a group of all the same ability encourages lots of copying IMO!!!

And thanks for all the advice to talk to the head/teachers - I'll give it a few weeks to see how it's shaking down and then get stuck in

I think it depends a lot on the subject. I used to teach MFL and it is very difficult to differentiate when you have a very wide spectrum of aptitude and interest in a subject where because there is a spoken element (and the best teachers speak only in that language during lessons).
My DC are a very academic indie school, where every subject other than RE, Art and PE is 'setted' according to their ability in that subject, and so they can achieve mush more in all the sets. In the state schools I have taught in, only maths, English and science is set

here you go, pink

not that I'm an education geek or anything

I have very mixed feelings on this topic. As a school governor for my children's primary I have witnessed the efforts of a new Head to bring our school from a satisfactory to a good rating and the intention to attain 'Outstanding' at the next inspection. The school has to make provision for all pupils and I would never expect a good or outstanding school to leave 'gifted' pupils to 'colour in'. A school is of course dependent on good levels of TA support to acheive a good balance in lessons. And often children with SEN are allocated extra support that also helps a teacher to spend more time with more able students - group work and extending activities. If the teachers are good and the class sizes are reasonable then much can be done to support able pupils.

In my experience - My ds1 is just starting yr6 and though he has been assessed as a level 5 in reading, has good effort grades and positive feedback from his teachers He is already stressing about the SATs in the Spring. I do not see this as a positive influence on his education. School should be instilling a love of education giving the children a good facts and skills basis to their learning not just training them to take tests. Streaming in English and maths can be useful - but not essential in lower school. As we have a 3 tier system in my area - My children are in/ will be in middle school for years 5-8 where streaming and subject lessons are introduced from the start. This is excellent preparation for High school. I went through the same system when I was at school in Yorkshire and I do believe it is advantageous. But it can be stressful and academic children are not immune to stress, in fact I spent the summer de-schooling and de-stressing ds not preparing / tutoring him for the SAT year. I do not regret that.

When I look at the number of my peers/ friends/ friends children - who are bright and achieved excellent exam results at school only to fall apart at university (usually around yr2) - I know that putting too much emphasis on the academic aspect of schooling and not paying enough attention to the emotional tolls of growing up is hazardous. I am not saying you are doing that op but currently I care less about whether ds is in the right stream and more about his state of mind. He will be the master of his destiny - I will give him support, experiences (enriching activities and mindless fun), nutrition and a place to work, the school will instruct him ... the rest is up to him.

"I think what I'm railing about really is that there are some schools with a really ingrained culture of 'oh, that'll do - these kids aren't aiming at uni anyway'. And unfortunately our local schools fall into that bracket."

My ds is at a school which is just starting to send a few kids to university. It's often not the teachers who have low expectations, but the kids come into school bringing low expectations from home. And, frankly, it's quite often not so much having low expectations, but just not knowing what is available. If nobody in your family has ever stayed on at school past 16 how would you possibly consider doing it yourself? Teachers can only do so much.

Brilliant, thanks Hakluyt, I will have a look. Just having a quick look at the OFSTED for the secondary and it says attainment for more able pupils has improved sharply recently so maybe I'm getting myself worked up over not much (wouldn't be the first time).

Have to go out now but thanks very much for the advice and for not ripping me to shreds for being a hideous socially-engineering entitled PITA mum.

I thought secondary school set anyway.
My dcs secondary sets children for the core subjects Engish, maths and Science.
I don't agree with streaming which means that the more academic kids all stay in the same groups for everything and
the less academic stay in the same group for every subject

That's a very good point, areyoubeingserved- setting and streaming are very very different things.

There are quite a few secondary schools that don't set, or only set for maths and perhaps science. Our school sets for maths only, even at GCSE. My daughter has been bored rigid during English (her favourite subject) for years now, and has learned pathetically little in 4 years of French. The only plus here is that the school offers Latin, which she adores - but of course only she and 10 other bright children are doing it. Seeing the difference in how she responds to being expected to work hard and rigorously, makes it very depressing to reflect on how much more she could have learned if the same expectations had been present in the rest of her classes.

Streaming is so outdated yet some schools stick with it often under the guise of banding.

It seems quite odd that as a adults we understand perfectly that we need to learn things with a like-ability cohort, yet children are expected to thrive in the opposite setting .

If I decide to learn a new language I don't expect to join a class of those already proficient.

What should high achieving kids be scoring Hak? I assume 100% 5A*-C is a bit unreasonable (given that some are bound to go off the rails), but what is a good figure for that ability group? At what level would you start to be concerned?

TheWordFactory if you're an adult you will be joining a mixed-ability class of beginners, or a mixed ability class of those who have been learning for some time, and so on. It's not an exact analogy.

"If I decide to learn a new language I don't expect to join a class of those already proficient."

With the right support, this is probably a really good way to learn.

Not exact - but not far off. The other students would not be at my ability level.

But if you prefer, what about a level and university. Don't we accept that students thrive better in like-ability groups?

I have very similar views to you on this, OP. I'm convinced by the research that says that setting is detrimental to middle and low attainers, but beneficial to higher achievers. From a social mobility and justice point of view, I think mixed ability groups, with teachers with strong differentiation skills, are probably better. As the mum of a high attaining child who has just started at a secondary school that does very little setting in the first year or two, though, it's the area where I'm having to work hardest to be happy that the school is doing what's best for all children, not just my own...

Having said that, I've just refreshed my knowledge of how high attainers at the school do, and it looks like they actually make better progress than other groups, so the policy obviously isn't holding them back too much. We're only on Day 2, but I'm interested to see what the school does to achieve this.

It's interesting how people feel about setting though...

One things for sure, whether it matters or not, is that middle class parents will seek it out I'm grammar schools or the private sector ( as the op has seen )...

Word, I think we accept that high attaining students thrive in like-ability groups. Research suggests that's not always the case for lower attaining students.

I think you are confusing proficiency with ability -- they are not the same.

As far as university teaching goes, I do have extensive experience here as I am a university lecturer. I have taught at a post-1992 university, a RG university and a university specialising in adult entrants without a fixed entry requirement.

My experience has been that the most uniform results were at the RG university, where the cohort was tightly bunched into a very narrow spectrum of attainment, with very few doing poorly or spectacularly well. At the post-1992 university there was a long tail of people at the lower end and some absolutely brilliant achievements. And where I teach now where there is no fixed entry requirement for adults I have seen absolutely the best undergraduate work in my career.

I am strongly committed in my professional life to teaching in mixed ability groups. I don't think our bright students do less well than they would in a university where they have been selected by ability. But there are other factors in play, too, of course. The fact that they are highly motivated adults (rather than bored teenagers) has a lot to do with it. Everything is always more complicated than it appears.