How would you expect to hear that your child was being moved down a set?

[JenaiMorris]

Just that really. I'm trying to decide if I'm BU. Will stop by a little later to explain more (an at a sporting event with dodgy 3G!).

I received an email from the HoD when my DC was moved down a set for Maths between Y9/Y10. I thought it was a bit overkill, but I know they have had issues in the past with some parents being horrified that their little darling isn't top of the year group, so they go for the diplomatic, personal touch to soften the blow. I replied that it was the right decision - I am sure it was as I trust their judgement.

I think sometimes it is best to keep it informal to minimise the anxiety that can be caused by setting. For example, if a child moved down then a letter home could really knock their confidence which will only make the situation worse. I don't really agree with setting, but the idea is that it should be for children to receive teaching at the best level for them. I think making too much of what set a child is in can cause no end of problems.

A phonecall followed up by a letter.

There has been a bit of a re-shuffle at DS's school at the start of Yr 8 - some setting within the streaming across some subjects. Parents haven't been told at all afaik (though DS hasn't been moved), but I expect there will be an explanation at Parents Evening, or people can ask.

I wouldn't make a big deal of 'which set', only of is the work appropriate, is DS doing well, as well as he should be, better or worse!

I know of a few who are against sets. Sets are great if you are one of the bright ones in one of the top sets. However, I believe those in the bottom sets suffer. Many/some teachers will look at the class list, see the top target grade is 3c so only teach to 3c. If that 3c child was in a mixed ability group, they would have access to 3b or even more difficult work and they may be able to complete it. I believe teaching in sets places a glass ceiling on what children can achieve.

I teach mixed ability, it is hard but I have some of the kids achieving two or three levels above target. I have some children targeted the top level so I have to teach to it. It is possible because I have smaller classes - I fully believe smaller classes are the answer, not setting (I realise that is idealistic and unworkable due to budgets, but that is my view).

Setting makes it easier for teachers, it isn't necessarily what is best for children.

Teacher - I used to agree with you (and still do to an extent) but now I think setting per se is not the main problem, it's the fact that the top sets often get the best teachers leaving the NQTs, long term supplies and failing teachers with the lower sets. Also as many children in the lower sets have huge issues with concentration and (in my opinion) undiagnosed specific learning difficulties, they tend to be hardest kids to motivate, so small classes with strong TA support is essential along with specialist training around engagement and multi sensory resources for the teacher. Schools should experiment with reversing the provision so that the bottom sets get the strongest (and specifically trained) teachers and the highest sets get the NQT and long term supply. Unfortunately the articulate top set parents would complain so it will never happen and the lower sets (generally) therefore get left with the dregs....the lowest set of 2 or 3 severe SEN kids do often buck this trend with fabulous SEN teachers.

olivevoir58 top sets often get the best teachers
Not in my DC school. Top set seems to go to worst teachers where they can do least damage and the best teacher gets the crucial D/C borderline middle set.

DD's school don't make a big thing of sets. Parents don't get told and the school tries to fudge the issue by giving them names rather than A, B C or numbers. The pupils know of course, so we get to find out from our children.

The lower sets in DD's school get the better teachers especially in years 10 and 11. The school had a phenomenal success in this year's GCSEs with an 80% pass rate (inc English and maths) and this was due to using the heads of department for the bordeline cases.

I teach sets (secondary) and have also taught kids who are working more than one grade above their target level. The most important thing with setting is that there has to be overlap between what the sets are taught and plenty of opportunity for movement between sets.

I tend to teach the kids that are in front of me, not a sheet of target grades so I've never found that a problem.

We all take it turns to have sets of different ability, eg a particular teacher will have set 1 year 11, but set 5 year 10, or similar differential.
It is foolish to suggest that teachers only teach to the target levels, all the ones i know teach to who is in front of them. I think setting is a positive thing, providing there is possible movement. Not least in that in my school it allows us to have much smaller bottom sets so there is more opportunity for teacher intervention, so set 1 may have 30/31/32 students in it, but bottom set may only have 15-18. Our bottom sets make at least as much "value Added" progress as the higher sets, and since it something ofsted look at i would be surprised at any school which just ignored bottom set or gave them always the weakest teachers.

Goodness - what a response!

I'm sorry I've not been back earlier

Right, well yesterday morning we received a letter from the MFL team leader, through the post, addressed to dp and I, advising us that ds is being moved down a set in French as of Monday.

I assumed ds already knew, so mentioned it (I didn't confront him or anything!) and he was visibly taken aback - he'd had no idea. He's really, really upset about it (too upset tbh - it's cast a shadow over the whole bloody weekend) and also worried that he'll have to drop German (top sets do two MFLs in Y8/9) which he really enjoys.

Now, I should have approached ds differently perhaps but regardless - this seems like a crappy way of doing things. They weren't set at all in Y7 and we're only a matter of weeks into Y8 - as a rule I totally defer to ds's teachers' expertise but this time I'm rather pissed off.

I was hoping to ask for a bit of advice as to how to handle this but before ds and I managed to get home yesterday dp had already fired off a snotogram which I really don't think is going to help

It sounds like they may have had an french assessment and are now concerned that he won't manage in the top set, not unusual to get a letter, ds is in sets and they usually notify us by half term of their decision, always with the line 'sets may go down as well as up"!
Ring the mfl teacher on Monday, apologise for the snotgram (especially if dp didn't tell you he'd sent it before he did!) and ask for clarification as your ds isn't sure why, and about the 2nd mfl. It could be that taking on german as well is causing confusion or as has happened to my ds before that hes moving down because of not handing in sufficient work.

Coco, I'm totally in agreement there and if ds will do better in another set then I'm all for it. It's just the tone of the letter and the way in which the news was communicated that's irked me.

Labro, they had a test recently in which ds tells me he got 80%, which was apparently the passmark for their set (which is 2 out of 5). I imagine the rest of the group got higher, and people in set 3 got higher too so need moving up (necessitating space being made in set 2). Even so, it came as a shock to him. Maybe he needs a wake up call - he is pretty lazy.

My DCs told me and it was on their reports too. Incidentally, DD was put down a set in English when she attained the 4 th highest exam mark in the year group. ????!!!! all round! Turned out to be a clerical error. Generally they did not move sets much but younger DD went down a set for maths and got the best maths teacher in the school. No point going back up again. She really improved and was the best in her lower set so she felt a sense of achievement.

We were told by child, but it was just a couple of weeks after teacher had told us all was well at parent's evening but couldn't reveal how he had done in that term's test compared with classmates.

Op how would you have preferred things to be done? A letter home is a good thing surely? Even if worded poorly surely you're man enough to take it? And tbh your ds really shouldn't have been heartbroken - he'll probably be bouncing between sets like a yo-yo he'd better get used to it!

At mentoring evening in July, we actually asked if tutors/timetable/sets would change and the registration tutor said everything was reviewed then and there would be changes. About two weeks later they were told the beginning of the year was the time for set changes and when my daughter went back in September she had been moved down a set in English (quite a few went down in sets rather than up!). She told us, so we didn't question it.

titchy ds should have known that he was in the relegation zone and given the opportunity to prove himself. This didn't happen, nor is there any rationale specific to him given in the letter we received. Also it's not just about the French - as a result of being moved, he will have to stop German, which he enjoys. I'm all for ds being in the right set for him, but this move means losing an entire subject so to me (and to ds), it's a slightly bigger deal.

I'm not heartbroken btw - just annoyed.

Sorry I should have said - the response dp received to the snotogram confirms ds will have to drop German (although it doesn't spell it out - it just says "top sets only" or words to that effect).

Under those circumstances I would go in and talk to the teacher. It's surely too early in the year for a move that has such ramifications.

curlew, I had a brief chat with the HOY today. You're right I think, it's too soon to tinker when the repercussions are what they are. The first thing ds said was 'but we've had, like, 5 French lessons! How can they tell?'