Thoughts on streaming in the guardian

[mids2019]

Thoughts on streaming in the guardian.

www.theguardian.com/education/2021/nov/26/children-harmed-by-school-streaming-into-lower-ability-groups-uk-study-shows

What are your thoughts on this? I have always believed in streaming to allow the more able children opportunities to be challenged.

Interesting that it didn't look at educational attainment but just "psychosocial" issues. I don't see how looking at this in isolation gives a true picture. You may find that e.g. hyperactivity increases in the lower ability groups but educational attainment is much higher, which would mean there is an overall benefit.

Personally, I have found not streaming to be massively detrimental to higher achievers. I've also found that studies focus on the impact on lower ability students much more than higher ability students. It's as if it's a shameful thing to be concerned about stretching higher ability groups as "they'll be OK anyway".

This isn't streaming, I wish the word was used properly.

I personally think different paces of education are an advantage but the emphasis should be on creating an upper set and not a lower set in terms of promoting the concept. Anecdotally there is disappointment if a child is not in a top set for a subject but there should be opportunities to move set for all children. I think it is slightly concerning that parents of those in the non upper set may feel their child is being disadvantaged or socially harmed in some way through this.

@mids2019

I personally think different paces of education are an advantage but the emphasis should be on creating an upper set and not a lower set in terms of promoting the concept. Anecdotally there is disappointment if a child is not in a top set for a subject but there should be opportunities to move set for all children. I think it is slightly concerning that parents of those in the non upper set may feel their child is being disadvantaged or socially harmed in some way through this.

I disagree that the emphasis should be on the benefit for the upper set. Surely if it was any good it would be good for all levels.

@echt

Interesting. If it is shown that in terms of educational outcome that splitting classes had a positive effect for the upper set but a negative effect for the lower what would be the ethical way to teach the class?

There is loads of research to suggest that those not in the top set (which in almost all schools that set will be the majority of pupils) feel inadequate to some degree in a setting system.
This applies even in academically selective schools that use setting i.e. in schools where the lowest ability group is still academically very high ability. The message has still been sent to the pupils that in some way they are not as good as they could/should be. I know this isn’t the intention but research does suggest that this is result.

My less able DD was much happier in set subjects at secondary from an academic and social point of view, than the non set subjects or mixed ability classes in primary.

She was finally able to get away from those who called out the answer before she had finished understanding the question, away from those who commented on her spelling or handwriting, away from the bright kids who knew they were cleverer than her and made sure she knew it too.

What an absolutely bollocks article.

They aren't talking about setting. If 'ability groups' means, as the article suggests, kids of similar ability sitting on the same table as each other, but still in the same classroom with the same teacher, doing the same topic but at a different level then what were the classrooms with no 'ability groupings' doing? Giving the weakest kids the same work as the most able? Giving the weakest kids easier work but NOT sitting them on the same table as other kids? For all subjects? For some subjects?

And the suggestion of causation where there's merely correlation is unforgivable.

The headline is shamefully misleading. The authors of the study were very clear that there is a correlation, and is does NOT show causation. It seems pretty obvious that children with emotional issues will be more likely to struggle to concentrate and therefore end up in lower sets. In the absence of any evidence of a causal effect in the opposite direction - and considering the large evidence base that shows streaming/ sets are very beneficial from an academic perspective - the suggestion to remove streaming with no actual evidence that there are any benefits to doing so in the knowledge there would be very significant negative impacts is rather silly.

There is no streaming / setting / top tables in my children's primary classroom and it works very well. Children move each half term and work in partners / fours (sometimes 5 or 6). These partnerships of carefully planned. Work is differentiated within tasks but broadly they are all studying the same things together. The classes get on so well despite being very diverse in many ways. So it can work especially at primary but it does require skill and knowledge from teachers and in curriculum design.

It may work well, but there is a huge body of evidence if you care to research it showing that streaming improves learning, particularly for those at the top and the bottom of the spectrum of ability.

Primary schools also have to compensate for the fact that children in the UK start school SO much earlier than in most developed countries, and therefore there is a huge difference in ability, concentration, motor skills and comprehension between the oldest and youngest children in a class, because the difference between 4 and 5 is massive compared to the difference between 6 and 7 (school starting age in many of the best education systems in the world).

Without streaming summer-born children in particular can become very frustrated that the can't do/ understand things at the level of their older classmates and this can put them off education entirely or make them feel "stupid" when they are simply younger. Working in a mixed-age group will make them even more conscious of the huge gap between a 4 year old's abilities and a 5 year old's abilities. Data shows consistently that it is primarily summer-born children who are at the lower end of achivement in primary school, particularly in the first few years and lack of streaming obviously exacerbates the impact of this on their self-confidence and enjoyment of education.

This effect is well researched with indisputable data, hence the Government's commitment to change the law to allow parents discretion about whether summer-born children should be going to reception at compulsory school age (5) not when they are barely 4. It would be far better if children didn't go to school until they were all 6 or 7 but at least it's a start. But removing measures like streaming that mitigate the impact of the unjustifiable early start to education would be a very backwards move.

Full-on streaming, where the 'top' and 'bottom' [and middle etc] sets are put in different form groups and never taught together for any subject, can be pretty toxic IMO, very bad for kids put in the bottom streams, and not unambigously good even for the kids in the top set - setting normally maps on pretty much a 1:1 basis to parental income, meaning that those bright working class kids who find themselves in the top set can end up feeling very isolated.

But that type of streaming is, as far as I know, considered in [comprehensive, at least] educational circles to be pretty old hat.

But quite a bit of this article seems to be about "attainment grouping" within a class, which is hugely different, and IMHO in hardcore subjects like maths and especially in my experience MFL [e.g. since kids sometimes have to speak to the rest of the class in another language, something which can be humiliating for the weaker students if there are significant discrepancies in attainment] some sort of ability grouping from say year 8 or thereabouts is just good sense. Leave the form groups, PE, cookery, tech, etc etc etc, maybe even softer academic subjects like humanities etc, fully mixed and you almost get the best of both worlds.

I’ve taught in schools with streaming and schools without. (Secondary). I much prefer mixed ability groupings, it is better for all concerned. It’s not about providing different work- everyone does the same work but support is provided to those who need it.

I read somewhere (or was told in some training course, can’t remember) that once children are placed in the bottom set, statistically speaking they are very unlikely to get out, all the way through school. So if you’re pigeon holed at primary school on the ‘bottom’ table, you will most likely always be in the bottom set. What does that do to a child’s self worth?

@Fadette

Interesting that it didn't look at educational attainment but just "psychosocial" issues. I don't see how looking at this in isolation gives a true picture. You may find that e.g. hyperactivity increases in the lower ability groups but educational attainment is much higher, which would mean there is an overall benefit.

Personally, I have found not streaming to be massively detrimental to higher achievers. I've also found that studies focus on the impact on lower ability students much more than higher ability students. It's as if it's a shameful thing to be concerned about stretching higher ability groups as "they'll be OK anyway".

Yes,Higher Achievers suffer from streaming. Inevitably, teachers teach to the Middle range, HA are bored and turned off by work they could do when they were 9. Lower ability students suffer also. They are constantly reminded of their own shortcomings by the presence of HA students. Mixed ability classes help no one to progress. When I started teaching,streaming was still allowed . A teacher had an A stream class and a B stream class. A stream surged ahead and B stream made solid progress. Some crossed into A stream. .Mixed ability classes replaced streamed ones. Kids had to be taught in groups, effectively streamed in class, because lower ability just couldn't cope. Extension work had to be brought in to keep HA going and how awful it was - clever children being made to work like drones on worksheet after worksheet. There was no joy in learning for anyone. But mixed ability was a political wish. Politicians wanted to make all pupils equal. They couldn't make them all HA, so they kept bright kids down. There was no educational justification for all this. I was out of teaching for 6 years for my children. When I was back in the classroom I met my first non-reader.He literally couldn't read. I was shocked at how many there were. This was the result of crazy theories. Children of low ability were thought to learn by osmosis in the presence of HA in the classroom. It was a hideous joke on children who had difficulties. It's all a good bit better now, with much more support for these children, but first and second year pupils are still mixed ability, and HA children more or less mark time until they are streamed in3rd year.Streaming results in far better outcomes for both lower ability and HA.

This is in secondary schools btw

I found mixed ability classes good and bad. In the subjects that required greater literacy and numeracy skills, all it meant was that I sat at the back drawing cartoons and trying to stay out of the way of the kids who would find it far more entertaining to run riot, but in things like graphics or business studies it was fine and the atmosphere was different, but relaxed.

Subjects that involved an element of risk though - such as DT with white hot metals, casting molten metal, chisels and pillar drills, or science with chemicals, bunsen burners and magnesium strips? Fuck off doing that with a mixed ability class. There was only so many times I was prepared to dodge superheated tin snips or hydrochloric acid put into syringes and squirted across the room.

In some classes, we voted with our feet and would just not turn up in favour of going to the library and working in there. Eventually, it was realised where we were and were allowed to stay there unofficially as a 'study group', as bored and irritable kids are a nightmare - and 14 year old kids pissed off and feeling threatened whilst being prepared to work independently (as long as we were as far away from the carnage as possible) and risk getting into trouble because a detention is nothing compared to being stabbed with a pair of scissors in class - which happened to me.

This is also how they reintroduced setting for academic and more dangerous subjects and left the ones with limited opportunity for permanent injury as mixed.

Yes, Higher Achievers suffer from streaming. Inevitably, teachers teach to the Middle range, HA are bored and turned off by work they could do when they were 9. Lower ability students suffer also. They are constantly reminded of their own shortcomings by the presence of HA students. Mixed ability classes help no one to progress.

When I started teaching,streaming was still allowed . A teacher had an A stream class and a B stream class. A stream surged ahead and B stream made solid progress. Some crossed into A stream. Mixed ability classes replaced streamed ones. Kids had to be taught in groups, effectively streamed in class, because lower ability just couldn't cope. Extension work had to be brought in to keep HA going and how awful it was - clever children being made to work like drones on worksheet after worksheet. There was no joy in learning for anyone. But mixed ability was a political wish. Politicians wanted to make all pupils equal. They couldn't make them all HA, so they kept bright kids down. There was no educational justification for all this.

I was out of teaching for 6 years for my children. When I was back in the classroom I met my first non-reader. He literally couldn't read. I was shocked at how many there were. This was the result of crazy theories. Children of low ability were thought to learn by osmosis in the presence of HA in the classroom. It was a hideous joke on children who had difficulties. It's all a good bit better now, with much more support for these children, but first and second year pupils are still mixed ability, and HA children more or less mark time until they are streamed in3rd year.Streaming results in far better outcomes for both lower ability and HA.

I agree with every word of this. And the data in study after study proves that your personal experience is absolutely typical: you are completely right that mixed-ability groups/ streamed groups are both okish for middle achievers, but are catastrophic for HA and those that struggle and need more support.

@NeverDropYourMoonCup

I found mixed ability classes good and bad. In the subjects that required greater literacy and numeracy skills, all it meant was that I sat at the back drawing cartoons and trying to stay out of the way of the kids who would find it far more entertaining to run riot, but in things like graphics or business studies it was fine and the atmosphere was different, but relaxed.

Subjects that involved an element of risk though - such as DT with white hot metals, casting molten metal, chisels and pillar drills, or science with chemicals, bunsen burners and magnesium strips? Fuck off doing that with a mixed ability class. There was only so many times I was prepared to dodge superheated tin snips or hydrochloric acid put into syringes and squirted across the room.

In some classes, we voted with our feet and would just not turn up in favour of going to the library and working in there. Eventually, it was realised where we were and were allowed to stay there unofficially as a 'study group', as bored and irritable kids are a nightmare - and 14 year old kids pissed off and feeling threatened whilst being prepared to work independently (as long as we were as far away from the carnage as possible) and risk getting into trouble because a detention is nothing compared to being stabbed with a pair of scissors in class - which happened to me.

This is also how they reintroduced setting for academic and more dangerous subjects and left the ones with limited opportunity for permanent injury as mixed.

This sounds a lot like one of my secondary schools, now closed down. How anybody is meant to learn in that kind of environment I do not know. Going to school became an utter waste of time so eventually I pretty much gave up going and just studied at home on my own. I achieved the highest grades in my year (300 kids).

Just a thought but is this the grammar non grammar debate transferred to within one achool? Will the same arguments regarding the benefit or otherwise of grammar schools be reproduced here?

Interesting to see if those that support grammars support streaming (perhaps similarities in concept).

Interesting point that streaming correlates with socio economic background as streaming could appear socially divisive.

@mids2019

Just a thought but is this the grammar non grammar debate transferred to within one achool? Will the same arguments regarding the benefit or otherwise of grammar schools be reproduced here?

Interesting to see if those that support grammars support streaming (perhaps similarities in concept).

Interesting point that streaming correlates with socio economic background as streaming could appear socially divisive.

Yeah, there are certain similarities between selective schooling and selective setting/streaming. But to my mind the latter is more or less a good thing, with the former more or less a bad thing. My starter for ten on why selective setting/streaming is more benign than selective:

(a) GS selection is typically a one-shot, all or nothing, call made on the basis of a single exam, or couple of exams, taken in the early autumn of year 6, i.e. when kids are on average just over 10 & a half years old. Whereas within-school setting/streaming, in my preferred formation, can take place at the very end of year 7 [i.e. when kids’ average age is just under 12 & a half], and can be done on the basis of an entire year’s worth of work and observation. The kids compete on an equal basis, and e.g. any advantage that’s been conferred by attendance at a private prep school [in one or two of the most extreme cases in Kent nearly a third of GS kids went to private prep] has been largely watered down.

(b) Kids mature at different ages. Within school setting/streaming offers a degree of mobility between sets/and streams at various checkpoints over the course of a school career. You see this far less in a GS system – once you’re in [out], on the basis of exam performance at aged 10 & a half, you’re nearly always in [out] for good.

(c) Selective setting/streaming permits mixed-attainment mixing [a good thing for all concerned] in less academic pursuits, in a way that’s not possible with a GS/MS system.

Setting is different to streaming.

@Howshouldibehave

Setting is different to streaming.

sure, but it's on a continuum, right:

selective setting says, 'kids at different attainment levels shouldn't be in the same classroom when it's time to covre the most cognitively challenging material'.

selective streaming says, 'kids at different attainment levels shouldn't ever be in the same classroom'.

selective schooling says, 'kids at different attainment levels shouldn't ever be in the same building'.

setting & streaming are very close relatives. even schools with streaming usually see at lesat some relaxation of the streaming for at least some lessons [such as PE or whatever]

Could it be that the direction of causation assumed here is wrong? Perhaps those children likely to exhibit ADHD, emotional difficulties etc. end up in lower sets, rather than the placement in the lower set causing the ADHD etc.
There seems to be an ideological assumption behind this assumption which would be consistent with Guardian reporting of it.

Our lovely secondary has done away with setting at all. My child will not be going there and that is one of the reasons. I have friends with older children who are tearing their hair out at the disruption their children are facing in class.

From my own experience at secondary, some subjects were set and the experience was much better. I stil remember in one of my classes, I was sat next to a girl that got a G and I got an A*. The jump to A-level was massive as the gcse class couldn’t stretch the higher achievers well enough when there were pupils in the class really struggling with the basics.

I'm very on the fence about this. I come from the Dutch system which is fully streamed - different schools for different abilities. But there are mechanisms in the system to allow late bloomers to move up, and there is excellent vocational education. It isn't 'academics for all and if you fail, tough shit', the way it is in the UK.

My DDs grew up in the UK system, both high achievers. Their local secondary set for sciences and maths and taught mixed ability for humanities, arts and MFL. Worked pretty well except in MFL where there were not enough high achievers for the class not to be overwhelmed by those who were only doing MFL because they had to choose something. But that could be a local blip.

Full mixed ability - I don't see how that could work given how massive the gulf is. There were kids in my DDs' English classes who couldn't write a simple sentence, whether through SEN or total lack of support at home.