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

Possibly Amber, but it doesn't have to be the case .

My Dd would never have kept up in top set maths, but thrived in her own set and gained tons of confidence.

But another factor is if the high ability DC are legging it elsewhere it all becomes academic,

Even able children can have holes in their knowledge. Maths can be broken down into a group of subjects. For example some children find geometry easy and struggle with their tables.

I would like my children's schools to use assertive mentoring where detailed records of what a child can do is kept. Differentiation is still needed if ablity sets are used. Sadly some times assume that the top set children have no problems or that some children are useless at everything.

I don't have the book to hand (I lent it to a neighbour), but in his latest book Malcolm Gladwell refers to research that shows that having a peer group of similar ability is important in a classroom.

Basically, a student needs to feel that he/she is not alone in their questions/curiosities/confusions. If they do feel isolated in this sense, they won't ask questions, or seek help. This is important for both the top and bottom end of the ability range. He sites it as a reason that smaller class sizes often don't yield much better results, when you look at the research, despite our intuitive belief that surely a smaller class is better. When the class size is smaller, the chance of peers within the class at the same level of ability as you diminishes.

Again that's not been my experience of DS top sets.

holiday that would be my view.

Posters here are talking about teachers sand what they do,but actually education is a collegiate experience.

And whilst everyone doesn't need to be at exCtly the same level you do need a cohesive group with critical
amass IMVHO.

There is little to be gained from having one outlier . Not for the outlier or the other students.

WF are you referring to my post or an earlier one?

Xpost!

I do agree WF.

Ninimy - I went to a post-'92 Uni - I found it was an interesting mix of adult returners to education, Kids from rubbish private schools and comp/ six form college kids - the adult returners were by far the most interesting and motivated bunch and they got the best results. So I would agree with your assessment. I was in a very working class, low expectation town when I did my A-levels, so I probably could have acheived better results than I did but I don't regret my experience one iota. I had plenty of bright sparky and creative friends who didn't bother with education post 18 because their parents hadn't and they didn't have the support or the finances and they were expected to start working. Or they were not pursuing goals that required HE - i.e. in bands or music production a 6th form college qualification and lots of experience was all they needed.

School can be so limiting in its process of shepherding individual children towards passing tests instead of focusing on what a child's talents and interests are and how to develop them... such limited horizons when really for an 18 year old the world should be an open and exciting prospect.

I teach at two universities.

One very selective , one less so,

Whilst there are some brilliant students at the later, the standard is generally lower. Many of the students there would not keep up at the former.

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.

Research has consistently shown this, but research doesn't give a solution which doesn't hinder either group. I don't think the highest ability group should be placed into mixed ability sets for the benefit of others whilst at detriment to themselves.

Well I suppose since the majority of DC I'm the state sector are middle ability it makes economic sense to cater for them.

However we allow the high ability students to underachieve at our peril since this is where we will probably find our next generation or scientists, law makers, economists..,

"However we allow the high ability students to underachieve at our peril since this is where we will probably find our next generation or scientists, law makers, economists.."

Just adding my usual refrain- we allow the low ability students to underachieve even more at our peril, since this is where we find the next generation of the miserable, the angry and the disaffected.

Word: I do feel that the schools cater most for the middle ability children because they make up the majority but isn't this creating the problem of private schools 'creaming off' the most able students? People constantly argue that we shouldn't have selection and that private schools and grammars are damaging to what should be a comprehensive education system.
Most parents of a higher ability child who can see that their child is being held back by mixed ability teaching without adequate differentiation will do something about it if they can, which sometimes means abandoning the comprehensive system. I am one of those people who have gone private with one of my DC due to him being held back by mixed ability teaching with inadequate differentiation. I am constantly told that my decision is immoral and smells of snobbery and a belief that my child is superior to others. My decision is actually my desperate hope that my child can receive the education that he should and will help him the most. My reasons for sending my SLD child to his current special school are the same reasons for sending my other child private. No ideas of superiority, just trying to ensure my children teach their potential and not be held back or affected by others having very different potentials.

I wonder whether it depends on the subject too. I can see why setting in something like maths and science where there is lots of information to get across and learn to manipulate, I can see why setting could be beneficial to all. But last last year, my ds was in a (very) mixed ability history class, and from what he tells me it worked very well. The homework was project based, and they were all given individual targets and guidelines as to how to achieve them. And everyone could contribute something to class discussions.

hak I agree with you.

However , there is no evidence that mixed ability groups help low ability students.

So we are shafting our low and high attsiners to cater for the middle . Double whammy !

Just adding my usual refrain- we allow the low ability students to underachieve even more at our peril,

The children with the lowest ability and most severe LD receive much more in terms of differentiation and additional support than the highest achieving children. How many of the top 2% ability group have IEPs or ILPs or get extra funding for support to ensure that they have access to a curriculum that meets their learning needs? Now reverse that question and ask about the lowest 2% and what funding and plans they have in place. No child should be held back from reaching THEIR potential.

Kids spend seven years in primary school and seven years in secondary school. We have election every five years. Our children spend far longer in schools than politicians in their careers. I think politicians should leave education to the teachers and the real experienced experts in education and training.

Ime re primary school level top-middle-bottom ability setting did not work for my summer dcs and many of their peers and even parents. As many who knew about the system would have coached their dcs to ensure their kids would not get into bottom set. The kids in top set were being pushed to do better and given books to take home that the other two sets were not. My dc1 got 2c for ks1 so she was in the bottom set for all her primary school life. Often she was bored and finished her tasks early and was given computer games to play while others were still struggling with the tasks. There are many late boomers got stucked in bottom sets and left to their own devices too. So I ended up having to do a lot of work with my dc1 at home as she was not being challenged and not given the same curriculum level of education as those in middle and top.

Last year we moved house to ensure that my dcs will get into a decent secondary school. My dc2 was moved to a school that is not obsessed with ability sets. Dc2 is very much happier and doing a lot better emotionally and academically. The last school is a "good" school with ks2 60% 4B+ but the new school is a "outstanding" school with 80% 4B+ so outstanding sat results too. The new school also has more level 5 in reading, writing and maths.

What works and doesn't may depends on alot factors and the schools should best not the politicians. I am an average parent I can only share my own experience.

It's all a bit of a straw target, though, isn't it? IME state primaries AND secondaries set. Speaking as the mother of girls at a comp that various people on MN slag off regularly.

(PS I find Gladwell madly annoying and a bit glib, but that's a separate issue.)

Misunreasonable - Lowest ability children get less time with the teacher than middle or highest ability. Would you like your high ability child taught by a T.A?

"How many of the top 2% ability group have IEPs or ILPs or get extra funding for support to ensure that they have access to a curriculum that meets their learning needs?"

Well, as I am just off out, and will be out of range of the brickbats about to be thrown at me (what is a brick bat, by the way?) I would say to that that if you're in the top 2% ability group with no other additional needs then there is the internet, there is the library...............fill your boots. The bottom 2% can't do that, so need the expensive specialist teaching, equipment and so on........

Buttermilk: I don't mind who my high ability child is taught by as long as the teacher plans and sets the work and regular reviews to check understanding. My SLD child has a full time TA and I don't have a problem with that either.

Hakluyt: if my high ability child (or other high ability children) is expected to just use the internet and books to progress his learning then why should they even bother going to school? Teachers are supposed to teach, children don't go to school to teach themselves. High ability or not they deserve teachers to provide appropriate work, teach them methods, correct mistakes etc...

The whole ethos of comprehensive education is to teach for/to the majority not to those on either side of the line. This approach does nothing for anyone who does not fit in nice little boxes and does not have an IQ between 100-120 ( though those with IQs nearer 120 would benefit from grammar school teaching). It also does nothing for pupils with low IQ, they just tag along in lessons not understanding anything taking up teaching time either by misbehaving or by needing 'concepts' re-taught when the rest of the class should be 2 weeks further on.

It is quite obvious that academic selection is required probably from year 7, that is not going to happen in most areas though. The next best thing is to have setting in every subject and virtual segregation in every lesson ( excluding sport tutor group assembly). I know what I have said will be unpopular, but thank god DD1s school took this attitude and basically segregated the 20 or so 'high ability' pupils from the rest in almost every lesson.

"The whole ethos of comprehensive education is to teach for/to the majority not to those on either side of the line"

No it isn't.

Smokepole, comps set. Some even conduct the type of educational apartheid you recommend. Please get your facts right.

I know it's really, really seductive to have this mental picture of savage Lord of the Flies* scenarios where the one child who yearns secretly to read is bullied horribly till perhaps a sole librarian presses a book silently into their hand...but really, that's not quite what happens.

(Actually Golding wrote LOTF after teaching in a prep school. One of my teachers at school knew him. He was famous for being unable to control the kids. This is completely irrelevant but strangely compelling.)