Apologies to Cambridge matmos.

[grovel]

I just loved being number 1000. Such power!

Streaming is when the brighter DC are separated together for all subjects. Then the middle tier and so on.

Setting is seperated out by subject. So you can be in top set for English and second set for french and so on.

Setting accepts that many DC have higher ability in some subjects than in others.

T'was streaming in my day and utterly rubbish.

Don't agree with all Pugs was saying at all but at least in our school:

EYFS scores inform informal setting in KS1

KS1 SATS and continuous assessment decisions inform setting in KS2

Those predicted a low level 4 in KS2 SATS are expected to use different methods from others (we know who these are - generally - at the end of KS1)

The cohort is seen as HA, MA and LA (as it is generally elsewhere)?

There's a chance outliers in various sets may not reach potential (hopefully this is only a small chance)

There can be ceilings on the ability of the 'outliers' to access more advanced curriculum

KS2 scores help inform GCSE predictions

Progress is tracked from EYFS and doing well early on - through KS1 - mean academic expectations will generally be high level 3s at KS1 'need' to be level 5s at KS2 for adequate progress to have been made etc.

Not to say that things don't change and there won't be movements through ability groups etc.

Just wondering if this is what Pugs was driving at when she said - I think - something like 'it was all set in stone from EYFS'? It's not but perhaps some of the above may be what she was really driving at?

Ah t'was streaming in my day too. So many comps don't set?

It's a mixed bag happy.

Some set very flexibly. Some still stream. Some teach in mixed ability classes.

It's up to the school which system they choose.

In my experience, most comprehensives do set. At ds's school, they stream very broadly, then set within the stream. It is a school with a sort of rocket shaped ability profile- a pointy top with a very few high ability children in it, then more or less equal numbers of middle and low ability. They are assessed and rejigged every 6 months. However, it is quite flexible- you can be in the top stream for one subject even if you are in the middle stream for everything else. Very complicated, and I'm not completely convinced yet. But at least they are trying to be flexible- it's the set in stone- ness that I don't like.

What experience is that then seeker ?

My understabnding is that there are no comps in Kent.

A quick trip through MN will confirm that there is no evidence that most comps set. In my nearest town there are three comps. One sets. One streams. One teaches mixed ability. The UK comprehensive system in microcosm. Which comp you get, depends entirely on where you live and if you believe in God.

Interestlingly, our nearest grammar does set.
It only takes DC who are bright, yet still feels setting is beneficial. As does my DC's selective independent.

Quite why our local comp (with a braod range of ability) thinks it doesn't need to, is utterly beyond me.

The experience of my family and friends, and reading the education press and reading mumsnet. As I said in my experience.

Whilst I am not hugely in favour of top down directives, I do think setting should be one of the things state schools are given no choice about.

In 1997 Tony Blair made a pledge that setting would be de rigour, but in 2010 a third of all pupils were still being streamed.

Time for government to grasp this nettle IMVHO.

I don't think there are any educationalists who thinks streaming is a good idea. However, there is evidence that mixed ability works. Frankly, I can't see how- but there it is.

I know. Everyone decries streaming, so why schools think they're a good idea is beyond me!!!

Mixed ability is an odd one. I've seen it said, that it works well...but that seems to be against all common sense.

I'm working with a group of students doing placements in schools ATM (fucking employability modules, don't ask...). Anyway, the combinations of setting and streaming they are telling me about are very interesting: one girl went to a school where they had the fairly common ''half year' arrangement with parallel sets 1-3 or 4 - but then the top 30 children in the year were in a class of their own, in which they stayed for each subject. So a top stream, and everyone else set!

From the NUT website:

"Creating more prescription for schools contradicts the Conservative?s avowed aim of giving schools more freedom. Deceptively simple proposals such as imposing setting and streaming and a one size fits all approach to teaching reading may appear attractive to the Conservative Party central office but they have little connection with good practice and what works in schools."

Glad not to be completely outed on here!
My argument stands. If you are streamed early in year 1 by table, put on table 2 because you were a youngest in year & had less than a third of the education of the eldest child at EYFS assessment, you are given different work to table 1 & will struggle hugely to convince any teacher that table 1 is where you should be! By ks1 says, you are not allowed to take the top papers so your results are middle, so your prediction for ks2 is still at the lower level. Between years 3&6 it becomes even harder to prove you are top table material because there is even more work you have missed out on by not being top table. And so the progression continues.
In our case, dd had got the hump & decided she would never reach table 1 by the end of year 1. By the end of year 2 she was so grumpy & uptight we just knew we had to get her out of there.
I don't think her new head gave her any special treatment. She just did incredibly well in her entrance tests & has been assessed properly. She is now setted for maths, all else is in mixed ability classes. She knows she has as much chance as anybody of getting the top marks & relishes it!
All of our local lower schools stream by table so we had no choice but to look private. & the new school is a very good fit for her. That doesn't stop me from wishing our local state system was different & feeling sorry for those who are like dd but can't stretch to the private fees though! & dh has since become a governor at the local lower school to try to help the kids there if he can.

That sounds a bit like ds's school, TOSN. The ability range is so skewed that they have to have sets within streams- which seems to make it possible for the outliers in each stream to be catered for.

Pugs isn't the setting for maths even more potentially flawed in terms of reaching potential? Or are the sets very flexible? Personally I'd have thought the table system is more transparent in a way?

Once again, pugs, what you are describing is not how the system works. Your school was obviously some sort of abberation- the only school, for example, using KS1 test papers, not teacher assessment.

But it is how our local 3 tier system of 16 schools! I am not saying it is bad for all, just that dd did badly in it.
Setting for Maths potentially even worse I agree - however (not being nasty) this is not something that affects us as dd is top set. Current school at least sets by just one subject rather than streaming & doesn't set Maths at all until year 3 which at least gives the 'younger in year kids' a chance to catch up first.

So yours is the only school in the country still using KS1 tests rather than teacher assessment?

Remember Seeker, this whole discussion was meant to be about our dream school system where all could do their very best. For dd, the biggest difference in the new school is confidence, although it has still taken nearly 4 years to develop after her horrible experience at school 1. She cried with joy when she got her scholarship offer last week because 'this means I'm really not one of the thick kids anymore' & 'I never knew I could be that good'. Now to hope that she can continue to improve her confidence in her own ability at 'the big school' next year!

I have no idea about other schools in the country Seeker. I can only voice my experiences!
To be fair, dd is now year 6 so who knows how ks1 is assessed now

That's fantastic, and I am delighted. But I am concerned about the misinformation about the state system you are perpetuating, and how worrying it might be to someone who's looking for information.

So you have, at least, stopped saying that your experience extrapolates to all state schools. Which is something, I suppose.

You do realise that this 'younger in year' stuff is just completely rubbish? Some youngest in year kids struggle. Some are top of the whole year. It has nothing to do with when they were born - I know you adore making generalisations but like the rest of them, this one is particularly unhelpful.