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.

I understand that for lower achieving children it may be helpful to be in a mixed set, but I have never understood why it would benefit the high achievers. I would be really grateful if someone with teaching experience could explain that to me.

"I understand that for lower achieving children it may be helpful to be in a mixed set, but I have never understood why it would benefit the high achievers."

Maybe not being in a bubble of high achievers is good for them in other ways?

I think the point is that it actively benefits the lower achievers, and does not disbenefit the high achievers, so is a good thing overall?

I think the research shows that setting benefits high achievers and mixed ability benefits the middle and lower end.

As a maths teacher I find mixed ability teaching exceptionally difficult for the term before we set Y7 (obviously it would be easier if it was my normal way of working). In English you can set the whole class the same task and differentiate by outcome, but in maths setting a task that a wide range of abilities can access and gain from is very difficult. Mixed ability maths teaching usually ends up as one frazzled teacher actually teaching different 'sets' with children grouped accordingly, but within one classroom - or the old way of SMP booklets where children basically teach themselves at their own pace by working through each booklet individually.

I have yet to see mixed ability maths teaching done well. I know people like Jo Boaler (who wrote the telegraph article) are in favour, but in terms of how-to, it's poorly resourced and usually (IME) poorly implemented.

See, that's what I experienced, and have consequently always thought. Great for the middle and botto m, but leaves the top coasting.

To come back to the OP, I know several new schools that didn't set at first, and then did after a few years.

I think it is because of timetabling - until you have a full or nearly full complement of staff, you won't have enough teachers in each subject to timetable across the year (or half year in big schools). So the choice is streaming or mixed ability teaching, as I understand it. I have heard people involved in running new schools say that so much management time and effort is put into the first cohort or two, getting everything absolutely right, that this works out OK.

I would be surprised if WLFS was not setting in four years. It would be very unusual in inner London I think.

And I understand the cynicism about admissions, but think the school will also be subjected to an extraordinary level of scrutiny given the personalities and politics involved, which may balance things up a little.

Proposition- 'great for middle and bottom, leaves the top coasting...'

That entirely depends on what constitutes 'the top'. At my DSs' school, 'the top' includes DCs with A level maths- at Y6; and a DS who has just gone to uni in Y10 to do economics, the other GCSEs necessary to enter uni having been taught to the required level by this otherwise non-setting school... BUT the majority of the top set contains DC who happen to be very good but not necessarily genius at Maths (which, along with MFL in Y8 is all they set for). The idea that 'the set above' will always provide the ceiling for the set below but, for the top set, somehow there is no end to their ability purely because there is not a named, populated set above, is flawed.

Littentree Snobbery seems to be a taboo subject. Why? It is a facet of human nature. Not everyone is that way inclined but many are. I suppose snobbery values style over substance. Difficult thing to pin down because no one seems to see themselves as a snob. What about Penny Keith in the Good Life?

The beauty of choice: if you don't like what the Headmaster or Deputy says then don't go there!