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

Because Hak you're talking about a few lessons in citizenship.

Imagine if that were maths.

How would you feel if your DS were mathmatically able and that was proposed from now on?

I mean, come on.

The point of course Hakluyt. and you know it that there are 'excellent' non selective schools in selective areas, even my old school in Folkestone ( that was probably the worst school in the UK or Kent , does not really matter which) is improving very quickly and is starting to do 'OK'. It is now giving students below the top 25% of the academic ability range a good and appropriate education.

The difference is the two schools I mentioned, both from totally comprehensive systems continue to decline. What about an 11 year old 'bright' able child having to go to either school the child 's will to learn will be gone in 6 months. There needs to be academic selection for children like this away from the 'dustbin'. God I know the Kent 11+ 'sometimes' gets it very wrong DD scored 380 but got no admittance because of 104 on NVR .
The method of testing needs to change, not 'academic selection'.

If I had a year 9 top 2% mathematician wouldn't he be working at undergraduate level? So surely the "you might want to have a look at this and see what you make of it- come and talk to me about it when you're ready" approach would be ideal?

"There needs to be academic selection for children like this away from the 'dustbin'."

That's the second time someone on this thread has used this sort of language about kids deemed non selective. "Scrap heap" was the expression used previously. I make no comment- I think it speaks for itself.

But Hakluyt he (or she) would not have the emotional maturity of a 19 year old, so would need more direction.

Still of course they would.

And why are we talking about top 2%?

There are DC nowhere near that who are still very able and high achieving and yet find themselves ahead of their peers.

They need guidance and a collegiate atmosphere.

Crikey, even PHD students have a supervisor!

Would have the emotional maturity of a 19 year old at 14 ? Blimey

I'm utterly sick to death of people talking about 'ability' as though it is 1) easily identified and b) fixed and immovable.

There is a reason why the children of well-off people do vastly better in all tests of ability than the children of the poor, and it isn't because they are innately massively more intelligent. It is because of the way they are nurtured and educated.

"There needs to be academic selection for children like this away from the 'dustbin'"

Seriously - shame on you.

So minifingers what do you suggest ? I believe passionately in equality of opportunity how do we achieve it ? I think there are some studies which suggest children from lowest decile of income are 2 years behind the top decile by school entry :(

Hak - I know the conversation has likely moved on since you posted this:

And I wasn't being obnoxious. I am aware that the Mumsnet received wisdom is that being very bright is just as much a special need as having learning difficulties, and should be treated similarly. I just don't agree. I think that for very bright children a hands off, student guided approach is the best way- obviously with a pedagogic overview. I don't think that's short changing the very bright- it's facilitating their learning rather than teaching them. And in the competition for resources, the children with learning difficulties should win. Every time.

But. You have made several posts which imply that the very bright and those with learning difficulties are two completely separate blobs on the venn diagram of life - and this simply isn't true. And it really annoys me that you keep saying this, because it's one of the issues that parents of 2E kids have to battle - either people (often teachers) ignore the SEN issue because the kids are sufficiently bright that they still 'look' bright (less so than they actually are, obviously) with no support for the SEN issue OR people see only the SEN issue and ignore the fact that the child is also very very bright. Neither approach is appropriate or equitable.

I do agree with you about independent learning being important - but only up to a point. The very bright are not necessarily the most mature (even those without SEN issues) and they need to be supported in developing independent learning in the same way as other kids need to be supported in the 3Rs or whatever. Every child deserves an appropriate education and setting the parents of kids with one group of needs against the parents of kids with another group of needs is not a decent civilised or even sensible strategy - but it's essentially what successive governments of both stripes have done.

I did find it intriguing that in another post you described your DS as 'a musician'. I wouldn't describe any of my kids as musicians - despite their current levels of attainment. I think this demonstrates the sort of supreme confidence that some people have, this rubs off on their kids and they do tend to be the sort of kids with the resilience to do well anywhere (regardless of whether this confidence is actually grounded in fact or not - it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy). I suspect your DS is excellent at independent learning because he has that confidence.Other very bright kids may not have that, especially if they have SEN issues. I think you are extrapolating your DS's reaction to benign neglect at school and assuming that all outliers would react the same way. I know many who wouldn't.

It does seem to be one of those issues that, once you start to unravel it, basically requires a revolution and the abolition of private property. Or maybe that's just me.

Word - I'm not so worried about future lawyers accountants and medics - state schools can and do do a wonderful job with the brightest kids in their grasp in the purely academic subjects. Plenty of state school kids go on to read law, history, medicine. What I worry about most (and yes obviously it's because it's my Thing) is the arts. The arts are being decimated in state schools and funding for post 18 arts ed is a nightmare. The arts are becoming the exclusive province of the monied with a few scraps thrown to the very very poor. This is, I believe, very bad for society. I suspect it's a minority view (although not within my social circles obviously). It really worries and saddens me.

I agree with holidays. There is an issue when you have a child who talks about science at GCSE/Alevels level to a teacher that hasn't a clue what they are talking about. The result is usually that the child is being fobbed off, sometimes put down because it makes the teacher very uncomfortable (real case scenario here).

I also think that there is a need fluidity so that children can move from one level I the next (from low to medium, high to medium and whatever other combination). The issue being that each group has specific needs that have to be addressed and of course you can have an average child in KS1 that us doing very very well in KS2 and you have to leave that door open to them.

What I am frightened of is a repeat of what happens with girls and maths/science. A our secondary, right from Y7, girls are seen as not doing as well as boys. That there us a clear gap between them, explained to me by teachers as 'it's normal. Boys are good at maths but girls not so much.' (Meaning it's genetic, nothing that can be done about it). Except that I. Other countries girls are better at maths than boys, incl at Alevels. And there are more girls than boys ding maths Alevels. So nothing to do with genetics but all down to expectations from primary school teachers (and parents).
Now take that to high ability children and set a system that never encourages them to do their best, doesn't allow them resources to learn and thrive, then what do you get? My dcs school that IS noted as outstanding by OFSTED doesn't teach them to achieve their best but to do the minimum required re SATS. After that, some school work is given but there is never the need for them to do better unlike for the lower and middle ability groups.
And that is a shame.

I think independent learning has become a way to place the responsibility for a child 's outcome on the child.

It's a great ruse if you think about it.

Rabbit that's not true. I think 7% of the population is privately educated yet in my year (medical school 1994) 80% had gone to private school. I think it's even higher now since they have to pay their own fees.

Pink I am completely with you on the abolition of private property so long as my books and my instruments are excluded from the resources to be shared by all. The people's revolutionary committee would have to prise them from my cold dead hands. My house they can have and welcome to it. But my books and instruments? Never.

Word - my DD's SEN issues mean that they need way more practice at developing coping mechanisms to help them even come within sight of 'ordinary' levels of self organisation, so I'm very un-averse to them getting loads of low risk practice - but they still need support. It's a different type of support than other kids might need and as Hak very correctly points out, it's possibly less resource intensive (at least in one way - it wouldn't take the TIME some of the other support teachers have to provide involves ) but it would take proper thought and consideration, it's not easy and that's what makes it unattractive, I think. Certainly at the primary school they both attended it was very firmly in the 'too difficult' pile for most of the staff.

I think a key thing to remember is that bright kids are all individuals, with different issues, different strengths etc and a one size fits all approach will suit them no more than it suits kids at the other end of the achievement or ability spectrum (for whatever reason).

Haha, yes. They can have everything except my Kindle and my iPhone...

I do wonder, as wish says, whether that's true about state schools allowing children to really excel at core academic subjects - or, possibly more accurately, drilling kids to do really well in tests. If you want to get onto a medical course for instance, you really need to be getting those 3As or better. Academically selective private schools pride themselves on this, while also having amazing facilities for sports and arts and everything else. I know we can all cite the girl who left the local comp with 4As at A Level but realistically, there are far fewer of them coming from comps than there should be. (Or far more of them coming from private schools than there should be.)

Obviously the DSs will reject all talk of medicine or law and choose to do A Levels in IT and Media Studies anyway if I don't unclench a bit...

theword or it's a way to remove any responsibility from needing to do anything apart from the bare minimum.
After that each on their own.

I have to say I'm struggling to see how I would ever have learnt any of the maths I did at Alevels 'independently'. Can't compare it what is doing here but what I did? No way that you would learn it on your own.
And what about philosophy or critical thinking? You can only learn that by exchanging ideas.

Independent learning is quite limited in scope ime. It's something you do around some previous knowledge you have. But to go in depth, you need support. Just as PhD students have a supervisor. Or your Y5 is asking questions about how atoms are linked together to create a molecule.

Word factory I think the discussion of the top 2% evolved from my discussion about my DS who is within the top 2%.

Mini fingers There is a reason why the children of well-off people do vastly better in all tests of ability than the children of the poor, and it isn't because they are innately massively more intelligent. It is because of the way they are nurtured and educated.

Well in not sure where my DS fits in. He is within the top 2% academically for his age group and we are neither wealthy nor have masses of time to dedicate to his education. Giving up my job to care for other DS who has a complex range of disabling conditions and severe SLD means we are very cash poor (household income less than £30k). My DS attends a private school because we have a very generous scholarship but he was already doing well prior to going to the private school. We haven't pushed him or dedicated lots of time to his learning because frankly caring for DS with disabilities consumes most of our time. I only became aware that my son knew most of his time tables at the age of 3 when his preschool teacher took me aside excitedly at home time to tell me. They didn't teach him and I didn't teach him, he had taught himself using the calculator that came free when we opened his bank account.
So we don't fit the rich or specific nurturing theory.
Dad does have done ability to teach himself but I still think he needs teachers who will give him some time and differentiated learning do that he can reach his full potential.

Captain - I had to do a lot of the maths I did at A level independently - my school wasn't supposed to offer further maths, the council designated one 6th form as the further maths 6th form, because there were so few kids in the borough who wanted to do it. My school agreed to let me and 2 other kids at the school who also wanted to do it, have a go, having half the number of lessons we should have had, with the 2 teachers (one for pure one for applied) teaching us in their free periods. It was a raging success - one cambridge place, all 3 of us got As (these were in the days before A* obviously). We had the right amount of input, and we were all very motivated (and there was a certain amount of cooperation in the independent learning too). But that wouldn't have worked for everyone, or for every subject. I completely agree with you about philosophy and CT except for the fact that the reading required is necessarily going to be done independently - the inout comes before (directing the reading) and after (making sense of it all). They are big fans of independent learning at my DDs (grammar) school and it works really well, in the main. But it's properly directed, and properly evaluated/monitored. The independent learning (ha) that my girls did at primary school was ... not.

Apologies for all those typos.

captain I think it's the same coin, no?

And like rabbit I'm only a fan of. 'Independent learning' when it's done meaningfully .

Otherwise it's just a great ruse.

Like convincing those asked to do it that it will make them more able than those private school spoon fed kids.

Short change kids then make them feel grateful. - you couldn't make it up!

This is my totally unproved take on this : Within the top say 10% , there is a group who are self motivated, mature and respond well to independent learning. This is the group that "will do well anywhere" this is where those 4A* from the comp come from.

However there is another (probably the majority?) who will happily coast along to "good" GSCE passes (a couple of As, mostly Bs with a C in their weaker subject). These Dcs in the private system would have been challenged and pushed from day1. They would have ended up with straight As and be indistinguishable from the first group at 18.

Ok I think that we might have a different idea of independent learning. For me it means learning in your own wo no other input at all. You clearly add some input from teachers even though it's not at the level it should have been.

I completely agree that some of the learning has to be done on your own. Some reading, some thinking over, just plain work on the subject.
Very clear and more obvious when you get to Alevels than in primary.

Still I'm wondering what the 'would do well anywhere' managed to achieve if they were supported the same way than the group with 'good GCSE' is supported in the private sector?