A question for Toby Young and Thomas Packer at the West London Free School

[livinginchiswick]

Dear Mr. Young and Mr. Packer,
I understand you don't set for Maths till Year 8 and for English till Year 9. I have a child who will be sitting Level 6 Maths and English in Year 6. He has been set by his primary school for three years and is used to work at a certain level. If he goes to your school he will be in the same class with some children who may be finishing Year 6 with level 4. My question is: how will the teacher manage to run a class like that? What topics will be covered? Will my child be revising level 5 for a whole year or will the level 4 child be pushed two levels ahead ?

I am confused. Your vision is a successful academic school for all. Then why have you decided not to follow the sample of other academic successful London comprehensives such as Graveney, Fortismere, Holland Park...? They all sit the children in different bands in most or all subjects from day 1. This way, they can all get the help they need and progress at the speed they need. A proven and tested formula.

Do you band the children in any way? And if not, why not? Would really appreciate an answer before I fill the CAF. I really like the school but this concerns me and many parents I have talked to. Thank you.

UM- re 'setting', my DSs' secondary (comp) sets in Maths four weeks into Y7, then MFL at the start of Y8. They don't set for anything else. There are DC there with maths A levels in Y7; and one who's just left, at 14, to go to uni to do economics, having passed a string of GCSEs with A's.

It is the top performing comp, academically, in the county. So no, you don't have to set in everything!

livinginchiswick, my DS started year 7 this year at WLFS and he also got very high level 6 in maths and English in year 6. He is in mix class and he gets separate work and extension and lots of homework( work book) along side other high ability children. Like you,we were worried and nearly turned down his place for bursary at independent, thank goodness we didn't. I'm sure the school needs to support and stretch the high ability kids as well as supporting the one struggling, to get the result they are hoping to.

We are very very happy with the school and DS comes home with big smiling every day. I hope this helps.

There is no evidence to suggest that setting is beneficial. In a good school, teachers will differentiate to ensure all students make the appropriate progress.
If setting is important to you, you are free to choose another school. In my school, we do set in year 7, but any system presents compromises.

Actually, I don't think we can make sweeping statements like 'there is no evidence to suggest that setting is beneficial', because I'd say there's quite strong evidence that in some settings for some subjects it is beneficial. Maths springs to mind.

I think it would depend on the size and skills (and behavioural!) mix of a class of DC. If they're private or selective (given that private equals selective), or if they're a school you've attacked the gates with battering rams to get your DC into (WLFS) you'll probably have less diversity in a class therefore less need to differentiate. It is ironic that some of our most 'exclusive' selective schools are the most 'set'!

I also meant to add that the harsh reality in some schools is that their student body is such that they use 'setting' across the board to get the oiks (read: ill disciplined, disruptive, inattentive) out of the classes where the more-likely-to-pass DC are taught. This is why I chose the school I did for the DC- DS1 is clever and in set one or two for everything. DS2 is less academic but is taught in the same classes (albeit 2 years later!) as DS1, ie focused, purposeful, well-disciplined classes of mixed ability. In maths where DS2 is in set 3 (of 5), the only 'difference' is that the other DC in the class are of the same ability and therefore appropriately taught. (As an aside, I think Maths and maybe MFL are the 2 subjects where, really, you will see spectacular differences in ability in the same year group; one DC struggling with 3 digit addition, the next performing complex algebra). This school doesn't have to shove its dross into a (low) set to get it away from the quality as 95% of the DC are 'quality', just of varying ability- though I might add of generally higher-than-average ability as they are the DC of MC parents.

what a horrid snobby thread this is

Our RC school only bands for Maths, for first year. It bands a very few subjects (Maths, English and MFL) for second year. Everything else is successfully taught in mixed ability. Another, I may add very successful, local RC comprehensive is mixed ability to GSCE for English, and it has done their English results no harm at all.

My son is in the second set for English, so I suppose it doesn't bother me that he is banded. But if he was in the third set, and he may yet drop down to it, I would feel that his chances of expanding his ideas would be more limited. Surely whole point of academic comprehensive is that you don't band so rigorously, but just teach well/brilliant curriculum/behaviour management.

If the Free School doesn't band in the first year, I am beginning to think, good on it, because it is having more faith in the innate abilities and teamwork of the classes.

Please read that article in Telegraph Sat weekend about Maths sets in general [Education section]. It is so so contradicts what you are all spouting on this thread.

But how is lack of setting beneficial to those at the top?

Because children learn from each other? And the point of the school is not just for those at the top to be top!
A school is a learning environment.

I am using an example of the local school which doesn't set (St Mark's Catholic School in Hounslow) and is proud of its achievements in English. I met someone who was doing English A-Level there, and asked her how she felt about mixed ability sets in previous few years, and whether it had held her back. She looked at me as if I was mad.

"If the Free School doesn't band in the first year, I am beginning to think, good on it, because it is having more faith in the innate abilities and teamwork of the classes."

I would love to think this too. But sadly, i suspect that they aren't banding because they expect to have a uniformly high achieving intake with committed parents. Call me an old cynic.....

Old cynic....

You can call me an old cynic again because I also think that there is no way this school will be allowed to be anything but a success. So there will mysteriously be mo problem with resources, with behaviour, with staff turnover, with premises......

I think you are asking the wrong questions. You should be asking: a) what level of progress is every child expected to make in Year 7 and how many are making that level of progress. b) what extra help is given to children who don't make that progress.

Good progress should be made for low, medium and high achievers albeit not at the same level. I would have thought if a child is level 6 upon entry to a good school you should expect it to be level seven at end of the year. This will tell you if setting is even needed. And of course only the head/teachers can give you this information.

seeker we fall out from time to time but on this occasion I shall grace you with complete agreement!

As I said earlier, (my remarks re parents prepare to bash down school doors with battering rams to get their DC in), what the WLFS (and my DCs' school) benefits from is on side, committed parents.

swanthing- what do you mean by 'snobbish'? Do you mean my observation that sadly, in more deprived areas, you're more likely to find not just lower innate ability in the lower sets (which you'd find in a 'good' MC comp, too), you're also going to find poorly socialised, badly behaved DC? Who, if they'd come from 'better' backgrounds, might be in higher sets? But, as it is, merely trash the learning of the well-behaved but less able?

As for English- well, my DCs' school doesn't 'set' BUT it only allows DC who are likely to pass to take Eng Lit GCSE so in that way, they could be said to be 'setting'.

This remark:"But if he was in the third set, and he may yet drop down to it, I would feel that his chances of expanding his ideas would be more limited" demonstrates that you do not understand setting. If you trust the school- and your remarks indicate you do- and your DC is placed in a less academic set, this is because he has been assessed as not being able to access the speed and/or complexity of the work of the 'higher' set. They have placed him in a set appropriate to his ability- which of course might be the ability of a DC who has already reached the limits of their own intellect.

And finally, your DC is at an selective school. You yourself have told us it is a RC school (why?). It is endlessly shown that similar religious schools do better than secular ones. The speculation as to why is, imo, wrongly directed. To me, it's obvious that DC in religious affiliated schools do better because, pun intended, they're all 'singing from the same hymn sheet'. There is social cohesion. There will be non religious parents who have basically lied through their teeth, and been to Mass every week for years, and done the altar flowers for months- to get their DC into that school. They're committed. Their DC will do well.

I suppose I mentioned the RC ness of the school in passing, because I have a vague feeling that these schools would I hope be committed to maximising the chances of every pupil, rather than locking them into sets right from the start. Although I know other RC schools in area where they set in every subject; they get better results. Whether that is a more "Christian" way of organising things I don't know. Certainly some parents veer away from those schools on the basis that they are "restrictive".

If you like I am using the same argument that people use against 11+ selection. That Yr 7 is too early to "decide" that one "set" of pupils is destined to be challenged and inspired, and another group just make do. Mixing up abilities at least in Yr 7 when children are just starting to find out what they are capable of, is surely the best policy, at least in some subjects.

My son was disruptive in Art lessons because he is bad at Art. No doubt those children who are good at art would prefer to be with the other G & T artists. Yet no-one has suggested a lower set for that. He is learning from those who are good at art how to raise his game. Why on earth would his art improve he was put with all the other no-hopers?

I am a novice in educational theory, no doubt some teachers who actually know their stuff will be along to enlighten us I would be genuinely interested to hear what secondary school teachers think.

You think that faith schools are more committed to maximising the chances of every pupil? Why?

I'm not attacking, just really really intrigued.

Yep....I am often on the opposing side from seeker....but this time we are in total agreement. This school will NOT be allowed to fail and won't struggle with resources like other schools.

"My son was disruptive in Art lessons because he is bad at Art. No doubt those children who are good at art would prefer to be with the other G & T artists. Yet no-one has suggested a lower set for that. He is learning from those who are good at art how to raise his game. Why on earth would his art improve he was put with all the other no-hopers?"

Um- the first seven words of that statement concern me. He doesn't 'get it' so thinks it's OK to disrupt the education of others?

HOW good is this 'RC' school?! How do the 'G&T' in Art DC have their chances 'maximised' if they have a disruptive DC in their midst?

I suppose I am saying that if a Faith school didn't commit itself to maximising the chance of every pupil it shouldn't pretend to have Christian values [or whatever faith it represented]. Ds1 once got into trouble over something and Dh asked about nurture group etc to resolve some social issues. Teacher replied that they didn't have many resources for that, and I think DH just gave him a withering look as if to say (DH is Lutheran) You call yourself a Christian school? The school did give help after that. They have been goodpastoral (which incidentally is a Christian concept) It was a minor hiccup [I hope]

The argument is not that non-demominational schools don't maximize the chances, just that if a Faith school should fail on that one, they are going against the principles on which they were founded.

However, enough of faith issues; after all WLFS is not one; I am more interested in what makes a better learning environment in a general sense. Is it setting or partial setting?

litten They paid attention to his "needs", they encouraged him. The disruption in art lessons and all other lessons ceased. Why would setting have solved the problem?

Anyway, I still don't know any schools where art is setted at Yr 7, so what exactly is your point?

Oh yes, the G&T in Art have an afterschool club. Half the class also went to Tate Modern as a reward trip? The other half were less interested, and didn't get chosen, but at least they all had the chance to explore the curriculum surrounded by ideas and challenges in the first place.

We are digressing from the subject of Maths setting!

See, I'm not in favour of setting across the board; my DSs school doesn't set in anything except Maths (4 weeks into Y7) and MFL, in Y8. Yet they are the top academically performing comp in the county (Hants).

How do they do this? Well, to an extent they do 'set' via exam curriculum (see my remarks that only the more able do Eng Lit but this does constitute the majority of the DC)- BUT the real reason is that the school is very MC. Selection by house price. In this way they don't 'suffer' from having 'lower groups' populated with the less able and the disruptive.

TBF, it's not really fair to chuck in the art group and disruption thing if it's an extra-curricular activity, is it?

You still haven't told us why you think this thread is 'snobbish'!

the art group was extension for G &T. The disruption occurred in class lessons at beginning of Yr 7. He is now in Yr 8.

I think this thread is snobbish because a) it started with someone worrying that their child wasn't going to be stretched at the Free School, when any fule no that everything about the Free School screams work them till they drop (5pm extended day, loads of homework, no excuses etc) So that tells me the OP is ultra pushy. I think it is snobby to say my child is so clever and this school isn't going to be good enough for him. I've learnt that the hard way, realising that my child wasn't as clever or academic as many of his classmates. That doesn't mean that the school isn't just as much for people like him as for SATS level 6-rs. He makes his contribution to the school in all sorts of other ways (sings in Chamber choir at assorted venues for example) Any school which is only set up for one sort of academic success is not going to be a very good school anyway. Okay, so I am biased wanting my child to do as well academically as he is capable of, when he is not in the Top Sets, and not wishing schools to be designed to only benefit those in the TOP SETS.
b) I think it is snobbish to talk of MC parents and OIKS. Is that allowed? If you want to be pc about faith schools and dismiss them as mere social engineering, not in fact a question of faith in evidence (which in most cases they are...wanting your child to have an education which is underpinned by frequent reference to a Christian framework/worship), I am not allowed to be equally pc or sniffy about your use of word Oiks?

Am I...not I am...

However, Litten I do take your point, that schools which are generally selective whether by catchment, or faith, are likely to be less in need of setting. It is a fair one.

I just felt there was another angle to setting in general, and I disliked your tone, and that of some of the posters on here, which is typical knee jerk reaction that of course setting is good, because our children are going to be in the top sets. I do see that you have mentioned your son is not in top sets, so I am been a bit harsh. Apologies, and you have made valid points.

Like you and everyone I agonise over selection and choices, hate when I am in some way passed over, enjoy being told my children are better faster stronger. It is a the Selfish Gene really. We all want to help others, but we all want to be best.

There was another poster on "Oxbridge Material" who I thought encapsulated that tension between feeling upset that her son wasn't being given the same chance as others to achieve his goals because he had been earmarked as bottom third ability at a very academic school, at the same time she was subscribing to an entirely selective and (expensively procurred) view of education, and it was tearing her in pieces.