Setting in secondary schools

[TheOriginalSteamingNit]

Was about to comment on this on another thread, and decided it was too tangential to the issue, so am starting this.

One of the things I often see on here is 'comprehensives are fine as long as there is rigorous setting - and I must say I've always thought that's how I feel too. DD was initially set only for Maths and MFL, the rest came in year 8. But now in year 10 they aren't set for optional subjects - in her case, French, German, History and Geography. So still set for English, Maths and Science - not actually sure about RE.

It came up last night when she mentioned that today she is invited to some 'student summit' or Big Conversation type thing where they get to say what they think is good or bad about the school. The main thing she wants to say, btw, is that it's not fair that year 9 can go in any toilets, but year 10 can only use the year 10 and 11 toilets

So I, being a bit helicoptery don't-want-to-put-words-in-your-mouth-but... said 'yeah, and the sets in MFL and humanities, they should set you again!'. And she just looked quite surprised and said 'nah, I mean my French group isn't great, but I'm doing alright, aren't I? I think it's ok!'.

So I was thinking - top sets are presumably nice for the pupils in them and the teachers who teach them, but perhaps not having them isn't the disaster I and many others often think? I was really surprised that she felt that way, and it's made me think about other things, like children being in the 'wrong' set, or the top set getting to do things the others don't....

Do we need to worry if they're not set? Is setting actually more about the assumption that the well-behaved kids will be the brightest? I wonder.

She's doing "all right," though. Don't you (doesn't she) want her to be doing well? Or even brilliantly?

'all right' is a cop-out, IMO.

'All right' was her and me being modest, Missmiss

I think I'd still argue it is easier to do better when you're with a class who are better behaved and have higher expecations academically - a class where hlaf the pupls are still learning the present tense will have some presumably learing past and perfect tenses as extension work, whereas a class where the average kid is doing three tenses will have opportunities for the abler ones to do future tenses for example.

Also in years 7 and 8 friendship groups can be fluid and influence attitudes to work, so I'm much happier my very bright but complete sheep dd is in the top sets because she follows the examples of the masses and is happy to work.

Yes, all of that is true. I dunno, just musing.

Agree that setting (in fact streaming) is a proxy for "behaviour" in many people at least. Good teachers could engage different abilities to stretch each of them in a class, but what I think a lot of us are really worried about is that the "less able" are also disruptive and so on. If the "less able" are not interested in learing then that will have a knock-on effect to the class as a whole.

Not saying that all "less able" are disruptive, btw, or even that our fears that there is a correlation between less able and behaviour is actually made out.

My daughter has been in some pretty low sets and survived (by which I mean has batted above her average for three years to get herself moved up at year 10) and she says bad behaviour in those sets sometimes comes from 'can't be bothered to learn, like mucking around and often have parents who think messing around is funny as well' but also some children misbehave because they simply find academic learning harder. In the English GCSE set, for example, they were almost all predicted Ds and Es. Can you imagine finding work difficult AND being predicted a grade considered to be 'a fail' by pretty much everyone? I am not surprised some children as they get older (especially those whose strengths lie elsewhere - maybe they are entrepeneriel (sp?), or very creative) find themselves having to have a lot of self-discipline to stay on task and some finding that self-discipline hard.

So long as they are not bored from being under-stretched, it is much easier for the more able to stay on task. They find learning easier (and therefore probably more exciting) and certainly more rewarding as they are given nice, high predicted grades.

So, I ma pretty much agreeing with what has been said on here, and I also fully agree with a strong school discipline policy but I ma also saying we need to have some compassion in understanding why some children exhibit bad behaviour.

I think setting is necessary in maths, but I'm not so sure about other subjects. And while good behaviour in a class is always a good thing, it somehow doesn't seem fair that you need to be bright and in the top set to benefit from that, shouldn't all abilities have an equal chance of good behaviour in their class? Dd has been in a reasonably mixed ability class this year and has hopefully done OK, I have had a few worries that they might not be covering the higher level stuff as well as would be ideal, but I think (hope) it's been a lingering worry rather than an actual concern.

you get a certain amount of setting in your options in any case, in that at most schools very low ability children won't take mfl or triple science for example.

It's not always possible if there are small numbers doing a subject.
DS1 was setted right through to Year 9 for everything and was a bit surprised to find that in Y10 he was not setted for the "options" subjects. The same as your DD then.
He's just taken his GCSEs and of course we don't have results but he's predicted mostly A*s. I'd say that due to the small numbers in classes the teachers have managed differentiation quite well.

Yes, that is definitely what it is with French.

I think that mixed ability grouping raises the general level of attainment, which is why my DD's school takes this approach and their value added score is great.

However, their value added is great because they pull low achievers up to an average level very effectively to the detriment of the more able children imo.

In fact I started a thread about my concerns yesterday;the problem for my DD is that those children that are most likely to be disruptive are also those that are most likely to be academically weak, and due to the lack of setting she isn't able to get away from them.

Obviously there are also loads of really nice, conscientious, hard working children who aren't particularly academic and their parents are heaving a big sigh of relief for the mixed ability grouping in this school and of course they don't deserve to be put into a low set with disruptive, disaffected students.

My old school used to set and when I went back there to teach 8 years ago they were experimenting with mixed ability teaching (this is science btw).

Their ofsted report last year highlights that general achievement is good but bright pupils where not being stretched enough.

Incidently, although very SEN pupils were doing really well, the less needy lower ability ones were not being supported enough in lessons - quite an astute observation as this is exactly what I thought 6 years ago watching other teachers teach.

Have read this thread with interest as am kind of 'on the fence' here. At my DD's school the yr 7's were in mixed ability for the first term which was working well from their point of view. When they were set, there was a lot of disruption and it took a long time for the classes to settle again.

I would dispute the idea that the top set is better behaved. One or other of my DD twins is in the top set for each subject and they always complain about the disruption caused by a couple of the pupils in that set. It would seem that just because they are able doesn't always mean they are willing!

Me too Fernie - in year 7 I was very keen for them to get on and do the setting so my pfb would be with the nice children and I could boast, but I've become a lot more circumspect and more cynical about my initial attitude!

Putting aside the point that there'll be some "suboptimal" achievement at some point over secondary for most, setting by definition makes it easier to pitch learning more accurately, and target outcomes more tightly. More importantly I also think that learning is better if students see clearly the attainable and desirable outcome that they may lose by not playing ball.

For example, if you say, the school expects the top two sets to make the sixth form entry requirements, and the third one has a partial chance, while the last one would be best pitching for various desirable apprenticeships and other options at local colleges, you're saying there is a worthwhile outcome if you give it a go, and we'll help you in specific and proven ways. This could even mean that the groups take different exams, because sets 2/3 may have better "chances" if than if they took the same as set 1. There are fewer reasons to not be nice when you're in the right race for you.

It's quite difficult to conjure up and maintain different outcomes with mixed ability groups. Along with other noise happening in class.

DD is in top sets and if I believe even a fraction of what she tells me they get up to I have to hope that the lower sets are better behaved!

Unfortunately, it often comes down to practical, timetabling issues. Once they are grouped for Maths and English, options often cannot be. In most comps the least able will often not have the full range of options available in "academic" subjects anyway.

Surely setting by ability benefits everybody? People here seems to be just talking about being in the 'top set' but surely the best learning is going to go on if you are being taught at your level of understanding, and then stretched from that point. That applies equally to G&T, SEN, 'bright' 'average' or any other term you want to use.
My dd (Yr8) has gone right off maths - formerly her favourite subject by a mile because they waste so much of the lesson time "going over stuff we did in Yr4" (to quote her). Now clearly there are people who haven't got that stuff, who need to be taught at that level. Why should those who did get it then, have to sit and twiddle their thumbs for 1/2 of each lesson ? Equally, what would be the point in those children who struggle with maths, to sit with much of the information going over their heads ?
I know someone is going to say the teacher should be differentiating (and this one is better than the last) but why not make it much easier for everyone, by limiting the range of abilities they have to teach in any one lesson ?

I think in 'options' subjects, there often aren't enough pupils to be able to 'set', but then, you are unlikely to choose that option if you find it really hard, are you ?

Oh, and very often, there are far more pupils in the 'top' sets than in the lower ones, which makes sense to me to have a better ration for the dcs who struggle with learning.

In my ds's school, by 'setting' the top set (might have been 2 sets) did triple science in the same timetabled slot as the others did the double. Couldn't have done that without setting, so the pupils would have to use another option, find more space on the timetable, or not be able to do the triple.

It's not always that simple, though, because since you have to do one humanties and one MFL, there are some who've chosen the other, and some who have done it because they think it will be easier....

I am not sure I could say with a clear conscience that I think it benefits everyone. I think in maths it has been of benefit to my dd. I think there must be kids in set five who actually do care and don't want to be inthe bottom set and wish they had a few more motivated kids in their group, surely?

I am UTTERLY in favour of setting.
Kids who are at the top of set 2 will often do better than at the bottom of set 1.
Kids in set 5 do better with the speed and style of teaching that gives them the best chance.
Kids in set 3 are no longer middling, they are top and bottom of THEIR set.

and where possible, kids should be set for EACH subject. It will get the best results for them and the school after all.

I think I am too really, but dds reaction last night gave me pause for thought, and some optimism that it can work out when things aren't set.

Setting in French/German in particular must be desirable surely? Don't you want the teacher to use complex sentences to push the able and more simple vocabulary to build strong blocks for the less so?

Have to say I loathe with a vengeance mixed ability classes. My baggage from being in a state secondary late 70's/early 80's. Never been so bored as in English which was so mixed ability those on track for an A were taught with those headed for CSE fail.

As a student, I preferred sets.

As a teacher, I prefer mixed ability by a country mile.

As a parent? I am as yet undecided.

If the dynamic of a group is wrong, regardless of ability, it is wrong. This can apply to top sets too.

Those lovely hard working kids in bottom sets with 20 badly behaved ones just break my heart. Kinder to all to spread it out, surely? Able children IME will do well in any class, although you do have to be very careful to stretch them and encourage independent learning (which OFSTED looove these days!). Weak ones, epecially those with low self esteem, often crash and burn in bottom sets. TBH, I'd rather help them than worry about whether the top end get As or A*s.

Flame me if you want, but that's how I see it. Of course I'll care if DD gets put in a class with loads of difficult students, but I've taught enough top sets full of entitled, arrogant students who think they can talk all the time to know it's not as cut and dried as that. The mix and the dynamic has to be right.

(I have taught lots of nice classes too, btw!)