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

Misunreqsonable- I don't mean they should be abandoned. I'll give you an example. My son is a musician. In his school, they have a rotation system for what's called citizenship or something like that- and one of the rotations - two terms- is music. It very quickly because very clear that ds was significantly beyond anything the class were doing. So the teacher told him to think of something he would like to do in the double music lesson, the teacher approved (or didn't) his idea, pointed him in the right direction, and checked with him a couple of times during the lesson that he was getting on OK, and offered suggestions and answered questions. And at the end had a look at what he had been doing. My bilingual niece did something very similar in Spanish. No need for anything expensive- just a guiding hand if necessary. And what's wrong with finding stuff out for yourself? It's incredibly exciting!

Hakluyt; what you describe is differentiation, which fits into what I wrote about 'I don't care who teaches my son as long as the teacher sets the work, reviews and corrects' (on my phone and can't remember exact wording I used).
My experience with my son didn't include that. What he got was the same worksheets as the other 7 children in the top ability group with no scope for additional learning in the classroom. The top 2% need different work than the top 8 from a class of 30.

"Hakluyt; what you describe is differentiation, which fits into what I wrote about 'I don't care who teaches my son as long as the teacher sets the work, reviews and corrects' (on my phone and can't remember exact wording I used)."

I don't think it is differentiation, really- the teacher didn't set him anything to do- just let him get on with it. Obviously in your situation that didn't happen- but what I was questioning was your statement that the top2% need the resources and IEPs and so on that are appropriate for the "bottom" 2%. I just don't think they do. My ds, and my niece didn't need anything but a teacher with a bit of flexibility. The "bottom" 2% need more than that.

hak if you think it's appropriate for high ability students to just teach themselves and go on the internet then I am very glad to be able to side step out of the system!

And that's what will happen. Parents who believe their DC deserve more than that will vote with their feet.

And I'm pretty sure that the same will happen in a couple of other subjects this year- and if it doesn't, I'll be wanting to know why. Ds is by no means top 2% nationally. but he most certainly is in his school, so the school has to meet his needs.

Mother. DD1 went to a very 'ordinary' secondary school in Kent. They realised if the had not created a 'sub school' for their 20 or so high ability pupils the education they would have received would have been unacceptable. I would also have dragged her out of that school ( regardless of the fact she really enjoyed her secondary school) and forced her in to either private or to take the grammar school exam when a place became available in year 9.

The result from the school's 'apartheid' though worked for DD1 she ended up coming out with ABB at A2 ( she may have got 3 As at the grammar) ,this though is a good ending from what was potentially a 'terrible' school for DD1.

"hak if you think it's appropriate for high ability students to just teach themselves and go on the internet then I am very glad to be able to side step out of the system!"

Did you read where I said I didn't mean just teach themselves?

I think the government should take the research into account when making education policy.

Does the research suggest that setting results in better outcomes for the majority?

If not - then it shouldn't be done.

And we need to look at other ways of boosting the attainment of the small number of children who are already at the top of the tree in state schools.

mother all schools don't set and as you can see from the thread plenty of people think that's A Very Good Thing.

Apparently bright children should be happy to sort themselves out... Makes you wonder why we bother with school or university really

"Does the research suggest that setting results in better outcomes for the majority?

If not - then it shouldn't be done.

And we need to look at other ways of boosting the attainment of the small number of children who are already at the top of the tree in state schools."

Well, grammar schools aren't it- or wholly selective areas would have significantly better results than demographically similar comprehensive areas. Which they don't.

Can I ask what leads you to believe that there are only a small number of high ability children in state schools? Or do you mean the top 2%?

Sorry I havn't read the whole thread ( have just flicked through ). My dd1 is a high achiever, she's just gone into year 6 achieving level 5a and 5b's in most subjects. So far we have had no problems with her getting the correct work, she has often been in mixed year group classes ( due to the size of the school ), her teachers have always managed to give her the correct work and push her to achieve. She has also had a IEP in the past.

My other dd is at the same school, she has Autism and although she is achieving above average in most subjects she requires a full time TA, she is given work which suits her ability and they are very understanding when it comes to marking what level she is working at, it can't alway be accessed using tests as she will not sit and do a test so they find other ways.

From what I can see at the dd's school the high achieving kids get a lot of attention ( after all, they are likely to get high SAT results which will reflect on the school ), the lower achievers also get a lot of attention ( in hope to push them far enough to reach average scores ), the kids in the middle are the ones who just coast through and often get forgotten ( they are doing well, are average so no need to push them too hard ).

"pparently bright children should be happy to sort themselves out... Makes you wonder why we bother with school or university really"

I expected rather better of you than that. That is certainly not what I said. Shall we have an interesting discussion without putting words into each other's mouths or shall we just snipe?

"if you think it's tough being the parent of a clever child, then try being the parent of a lower ability one , or a child with learning difficulties. I know which I'd choose."

We have many friends in both categories and, hand on heart, I have seen more tragedies (suicides, severe MH problems) in the families of very clever children than in the families of children with learning difficulties.

but what I was questioning was your statement that the top2% need the resources and IEPs and so on that are appropriate for the "bottom" 2%.

Actually I didn't say that the top 2% need those. What u said was that the lowest ability have access to those to meet their needs and that the top ability group need appropriate support and differentiation to meet their needs.

'I said' not 'u'. I blame fat fingers and my phone.

Sorry, mrsunrqdonable- I was responding to this post of yours

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

Did I misunderstand you?

Hak you mentioned lessons where your DS and DN had nothing to take from the teacher or peers .

Upj

Yes you misunderstood. I was pointing out (in relation to an earlier post by somebody who said that we should concentrate on provisions for the lowest ability groups) that the lowest ability group is often catered for and that we have IEPs and ILPs and extra funding to ensure that these children have their needs met. Children at the upper end of the scale often don't have anything to ensure that their needs are met.
That isn't the same as saying both groups need IEPs or ILPs. I am saying that both groups have learning needs outside of the majority and both needs need to be accommodated appropriately.

You saw most wrong with that ...

And you knew you were being obnoxious which is why you did that silly brickbats post ...

You may consider t

Wow Pinksquidgy - looking at that free school you posted, they don't need a suspect admissions criteria to keep out the the children of parents who won't prop up the school. The school uniform style and cost will ensure certain types of parents don't apply. £35 for a junior school pinafore and £25 for a straw boater! It reminds me of the highest performing C of E primary school in my area which used to have a wool duffel coat on its compulsory school uniform list.

"Misunreqsonable- I don't mean they should be abandoned. I'll give you an example. My son is a musician. In his school, they have a rotation system for what's called citizenship or something like that- and one of the rotations - two terms- is music. It very quickly because very clear that ds was significantly beyond anything the class were doing. So the teacher told him to think of something he would like to do in the double music lesson, the teacher approved (or didn't) his idea, pointed him in the right direction, and checked with him a couple of times during the lesson that he was getting on OK, and offered suggestions and answered questions. And at the end had a look at what he had been doing. My bilingual niece did something very similar in Spanish. No need for anything expensive- just a guiding hand if necessary. And what's wrong with finding stuff out for yourself? It's incredibly exciting!"

Word- this is what I actually said. It strikes me as being excellent teaching- what do you see as wrong with it? The teacher looked at what my ds wanted to do, decided that it was appropriate and supported him as he did it. And checked the outcomes at the end. How is that not taking anything from the teacher?

I cannot tell you how bloody sick I am of them being given things to colour in

Give them something challenging to do at home if they can't sit still in a classroom for a few minutes in class colouring. There is nothing wrong with doing something else to fill the time when you're ahead. Just because a child is bright doesn't mean they will be damaged because they have a few minutes downtime at school.

Of course children 'at the bottom of the group' need more attention and focus and resources. And long may they continue to get it.

I have a high achieving child who has just gone into year 7. She has gone into a selective place at a bilateral school having achieved level 6s in her SATS, but not the highest marks in the 11+.

I was apprehensive about the bilateral school, but having spoken to parents of students already there, they appear to get the support and resources without the overly hot-housed effect of the grammar.

Dd is another who was always 'top' at her primary, and I did not feel that she was stretched as much as the lower attaining children. Without meaning to sound big headed about it dd needed more. Her homework was not taxing for her and neither was her classwork. However the pastoral care there was exceptional and dd was happy, most of the time!

Personally I think setting children can only be beneficial if there can be movement within the sets. This is not always the case and therefore children lose momentum and feel pigeon holed.

Dance, I agree there's nothing wrong with setting per se, it's the way it's done that can cause big problems. If they are set for all subjects, so that the boffin children who are bad at sports get set in a lower sports or art group that would be fair because all children would be deemed good at some things.

I fear that if they bring in setting it will only be done on academic subjects which will make the vast majority of children feel like failures.

The ablity setting debate is like the grammar school/ secondary modern debate. No one campaigns for their child to be in the bottom set, just like no one campaigns to save the secondary modern.

There are lots of different ways of doing setting. Some schools have wide banded sets with say 3 or 4 levels where as other schools have 9 levels.

Ds is in the second set out of four for MFL. His cousin who is at a different school is in the fourth set out of six. Ds sees himself as being OK at lanaguages, but not brilliant. Ds' cousin sees himself as being poor at langauges inspite of the fact that he is working at a similar national curriculum level to ds.

Being in the top set at a non academic school may well be less challenging than being in the third set at a more academic school. However the child who is in a low set will see themselves as less academic even if they well above national expectations.