Mixed-ability classes versus ability sets: any research/views?

[QWERTYmonster]

Hello

Apologies if this has been done before (am sure it will have been)

DS1's (Y5) maths classes are about to be changed from setting by ability to mixed-ability teaching.

Must admit my instinct is to be a bit cross about this (DS1 is pretty good at maths and has always been in the top 'table' within the top set - and yes, I'm worried this change will mean less challenging work for him).

But I realise I could be completely wrong about this. Anyone know of solid research about the implications of mixed-ability teaching for above-average pupils?

(Full disclosure: am cross with DS1's school anyway - he's identified (within normal school definition, ie the top 10% or whatever it is) as G&T but the provision is very poor, and from what I can see he's both coasting and a bit miserable at school. We were told a couple of years ago that he should easily achieve Level 5 by the end of Y5, but he's not on course for that at the moment.)

Would be grateful for input that will stop me having a kneejerk reaction and being less of a figure of dislike in the staffroom than I suspect I already am...

Thanks tiggytape.

I don't have much faith in the teaching in the school, tbh (high turnover of teaching staff, and what seems to me to be weirdly high proportion of NQTs/first year post-NQT). His form teacher this year seems almost useless.

The maths classes were taught by a different teacher, with whom he gets along very well (he also gets along with the kids in his maths set, unlike most of the kids in his form). So I'm kind of upset that he's going to lose both of those things.

Does anyone know whether there's any solid research about how above-average children do in mixed ability vs streamed settings? Or are there too many variables to be able to make the comparison?

I'm in the process of burning my bridges with this school (DS1 is top of the waiting list for another, better one) and if there's a solid evidential base for it, I feel like firing off a letter itemising all the ways they fail the brighter kids...

From what i know, research shows setting is better academically for above average kids (those who end up in the top set) but worse for only slightly above average and average kids who would have benefitted from the presence of the top children in class.

So for a school it can be better overall to switch from setting to mixed ability, but for your son individually Your intuition is right, it is probably worse for him. Sounds like he'll be fine anyway but maybe talk to them to make sure he continues to get stretched.

Ah thanks sanam.

Our school started setting for Maths from year 3 a couple of years ago and it has had very positive results. The average child is 4b at the end of year 4 which is two years above the average expectation.

Moving away from setting feels like a step backwards imo. What is the reasoning behind it?

DC school sets for maths but has mixed ability for everything else, including English. It has worked alright for DC, I perceive they are working to their potential.

Dd's school sets for numeracy literacy and phonics (in the lower school) everything else is mixed ability. There is a lot of movement between the sets and so seems to work well. Also three yr5/6 classes are streamed into seven or eight sets so groups are small.

Thanks all. I suspect my biggest problem is with (what I perceive to be) poor teaching rather than the setting itself.

Ah well, hopefully he'll be out of there soon [crosses everything]

Thanks tiggy - it's a super-oversubscribed school and I'm not sure what my basis for an appeal would be, other than 'my son is a special snowflake' (does that count? )

The research shows that is both are done well that there is no difference between mixed ability and setted teaching, however setted teaching makes less of a workload for the teacher (which is always a good thing as they then have more energy to do their job!). However in my experience, the reality is that mixed ability teaching is rarely done well for all the pupils in the class, unless you have some really good teaching assistants in with you. I certainly consider myself to be a pretty decent teacher teaching maths in sets, but if I had to do mixed ability I know my workload would increase dramatically and I would find it much harder to do day in day out.

My general rule of thumb is that by yr 5 in Maths if schools can they should be starting to set, however English can be taught mixed for longer.

Hi,
I have been a classroom teacher for over 30 years and I am a VERY strong believer in co-operative learning. The following is a very informative website: www.myread.org/organisation.htm.

I have always looked at my class as a group of students learning together, not individual students learning in the one room. Having higher achieving students working with average and below average students works well for all students. One only needs to look at the Learning Pyramid, the best way to consolidate knowledge is by teaching others.

Having students work together on a task or engaging in an educational board game motivates learning and makes it fun and achievable for the students.
Over the last 10 years, I have designed and continue to design educational board games and co-operative learning activities to promote co-operative learning. The hard work is in the designing of the cooperative learning activity.

These can be viewed at: www.roundtableeducation.com.au

Students sitting together and filling in worksheets is not co-operative learning, these sheets are just busy sheets and most of the time are a waste of time for all learners. Being involved in an activity that caters for all learning styles is real learning.

Most importantly I find ways to help the students feel good about themselves and at all cost I avoid streaming. I use mixed ability grouping as much as possible. The below average student needs a STUDENT MENTOR.

My motto is: Learning and working together creates the whole.

Regards, Margaret Rockett

But many higher achieving children get absolutely fed up of "teaching others", they want to learn, not teach!

Finland uses mixed ablity teaching up the age of 14 years and has some of the best results in the world. Singapore also has mixed ablity teaching.

I think with using tables or worse still seperate classes can deny the late developer opportuities to progress. It can make children on the top table (like my son!) lazy and big headed whereas children on the bottom table may lose all belief in themselves and stop trying.

The problem with mixed ablity teaching is that you need a well trained teacher and a small class to do it well.

Having higher achieving students working with average and below average students works well for all students

How, exactly ? .
Not setting for maths (this is secondary - sorry OP, to diviate from your question, but I am so cross about this), has turned my high achieving, enthusiastic dd from a maths loving, interested, attentitive puil, to a bored, cross, maths hater.
It's not one teacher. She's in Yr 9 now and has had different teachers each year (2 in Yr8) and has had to sit through what she considers to be Junior School work in every single class, often for half of each lesson. In what way is that benefitting anyone ? I don't see how all 4 teachers can all have been that poor - they are just struggling with a ridiculous breadth of understanding and knowledge in each class, instead of being able to focus on a smaller range of that and teach accordingly.

Sorry, forgot to say - thanks for the link to The Telegraph article, TiggyTape

Quite possibly Help
I do need to say, it's just the maths dept - the rest of the school are fab!

No,I've not come across them, but will look, thanks