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.

I wonder what would happen if you let the children (not the parents) choose what set to be in. Have any schools ever tried that?

IHeartKingThistle "TBH, I'd rather help them than worry about whether the top end get As or A*s."

Sadly, that's what goes on in a lot of secondary schools. My ds has suffered with this throughout - he'll come out with an 'OK' bunch of GCSEs, when, if there were fewer teachers thinking like that, he could have done really well .
I'm a teacher - this is not a general teacher bashing, but in my work life I've always wanted every pupil to achieve their potential, not just the ones who might tip a % on League Tables by moving from a D to a C.

I don't agree that less able = more disruptive either.
I would suggest a link between "not been taught at a level appropriate to the pupil" = disruptive though. This applies to bored bright kids as much as switched off less able kids.

Well at DCs school those hopeless at languages are siphoned off to do NVQs. At lots of schools not everyone has to do languages. They may also be siphoned off to do more vocational courses. So the option groups tend to be: brighter and /or more highly motivated.

I don't have an issue with setting its streaming that I think is very wrong. If your child is an all rounder then it's fine but if you excell in say English but struggle with maths then it doesn't work.

BackforGood I'm sure I would feel the same if I was in your shoes. I don't disagree with what you're saying. On an individual basis of course I want to help every child achieve their potential. But as a general philosophy on setting (which is what we're discussing here) I would still go for mixed ability to help the majority.

Please don't think I want to help the weaker ones because I give a crap about league tables though

I'm undecided. 5 out of my 6 DC are very mathematically and scientifically minded so I wanted them to be stretched and I thought having lower achievers wasn't helping anyone. DD2 is competent but has to really work but is stuck in a section where the rest of the class misbehave constantly. There just doesn't seem to be a happy medium, which is awful because it's the middling kids who seem to suffer.

But, IHeart, IMVHO, (and my experience working as a SENCo, and in special school, as well as class teacher in mainstream over the years), I have to diagree that mixed ability helping the majority. Trying to engage the 'middle ground, along with the lower ability and the quicker at learning and those with SEN all at the same time, usually ends up with a mish mash of not doing the best for any group. Yes, particular topics or projects or (at both my dd's and ds's schools they have 'Curriculum Days' each term where everything gets completely mixed up) and maybe for some subjects, but there's a whole heap - probably what would be considered the 'academic subjects' where it doesn't benefit any group IMO.

That reads back as being a bit jumbled - sorry! Hope you can decipher it. I think I need to go to bed now

Backforgood, I know what you mean; for the record I really only like mixed ability at KS3. Have tried it at GCSE and it was a shambles.

I don't know what the answer is. I just feel so strongly that those kids who are put in bottom sets from the beginning are then 'bottom set' in their own heads from then on, and it makes me sad.

I wish 'missmiss would come back and see that i have a modest daughter rather than a lack of ambition!

My school is setting year 10 MFL next year at our request - but it's not always easy. In fact the low-ish numbers taking MFL at KS4 make it difficult usually but next year we have enough for two groups.

I am happy to be teaching the lower set actually.

I approve of setting in general tho my school doesn't set at all for English and the dept just got v highly rataed by Ofsted.

God, I remember mixed ability classes. I developed the very useful skill of sitting right at the front corner where the teacher wasn't concentrating (they had to pay attention to the badly behaved brats at the back) and read a book under the desk. A useful skill, granted, but perhaps the time could have been netter spent?

Hi, theoriginal! I take your point about having a modest daughter .

But, as someone who attended a bog standard comprehensive in which there was very little setting, and as a teacher myself, I am firmly pro-setting.

I was lucky in that I was academic enough to do very well despite my school, but the whole experience was depressing and isolating. I'd have been much happier if we had been setted for every subject, rather than just Maths and science.

And as a teacher, I think setting is really valuable. I teach some very mixed ability classes and, whilst I differentiate where possible, my subject requires a lot of whole-class teaching and oral reinforcement. If I go too fast, the less able children are left behind; if I spend a long time reinforcing a concept, the more able get bored and switch off. It would be so much easier if the children were in sets: it would make it easier to stretch the able ones further, and ensure that the weaker ones got the consolidation and support they need.

I am very pro setting in mixed ability schools.

And I just think it's not enough to take a sample of one who is doing just fine. You have to ask how pupils are doing across the board.

I have twins and when they were both at the same school, I could see the different levels of work being done by each depending on their sets. It would, frankly, have been ridiculous for them to have been doing the same work. Quite unfair on all.

Yes, (though to be fair, I'm not saying 'my dd is fine so we don't need setting', more that her comments challenged some of my ideas) but the issue of different sets doing different work - well I have a friend who thinks this is wildly unfair on those in lower sets who aren't given access to the extra stuff and don't always even really follow the same curriculum. Which I can sort of see, to be honest. All very well if you're happy your child is in the right set, and not at the very top or very bottom of it, but could work against some children too.

I agree with setting for MFL. I was in top set for both French and German. Occasionally (due to staff sickness) they split the lower set class between two top sets. The work wasn't comparable. Having said that at the time you'd have foundation and higher language GCSEs and I don't know if you get those any more (?) so we were being taught to two different outcomes.

But there are other aspects that the top students wouldn't experience, same with the bottom, such as having the teacher's attention on a subject that they need stretching in. Our French class once spent a whole lesson learning basic Italian and Latin as a deviation from some questions we had asked about the roots of words. I had friends in lower set languages who struggled (and didn't see the point) in learning something like this so in a mixed class we probably wouldn't have done it.

I don't know about history and geography... certainly in those subjects I learned to find things out for myself as the teacher didn't have as much time to engage with us when teaching to mixed ability, but I bitterly resented having to 'help' people when I was curious to find more out about a subject. It didn't do me any long-lasting damage academically but it did influence which subjects I enjoyed and pursued later on.

Reading back it strikes me that my old school's approach in Science was the best, behaviour-wise, although used up a lot of resources (but maybe saved or created more benefits in the long run?). We had six sets and the 'bottom set' was basically a holding pen for all the disruptive pupils. Teachers worked on a rota (I think) and whilst they tried they hardest to get them to knuckle down to whichever topic was on offer, it was widely acknowledged that the students were all in that room to stop them disrupting other sets. Some of them certainly, if they had worked hard, could have made third or second set - it was their disruption and lack of work that pushed their marks down. One boy did something (I have no idea what) to get him kicked out of that group and for two months he was put into top set with us and deliberately sat between me and my male best friend to 'have a positive influence'. He spent the whole time trying to read my bra size through my shirt and shouting it out to the class (I was a very self-concious fourteen, it was mortifying) and trying to distract us from work.

By the end of the two months I was very grateful those students were mostly all confined to set six.

theoriginal the way I always view it is if my DC are being introduced to new concepts they're not ready for, then no one wins.

Take maths. My DD's worst subject. If she were to even contemplate doing what DS is doing then she woul dpanic and be flustered. What she needs is slow and steady maths teaching. If DS were forced to learn maths in her set, he would be seriously bored.

I must say, though, that perhaps I am happy with setting because poor behaviour isn't tolerated in any group.
And expectations remain high, even in the lower sets.

DD is fully expected and expecting to get a decent GCSE in maths, even though it really is her weakest subject.