Mixed ability teaching in all subjects until GCSE

[Buggedoff]

I went to visit a school last week, a free school as it happens, although I don't know if this is relevant. I was shown in all the classrooms, and had the normal talk by the head. During this talk, there was a lot of references to their very talented teachers, the extended day, class sizes of 25 and how core subjects are a focus.

There was no discussion of setting, but I had heard a rumour that this school uses mixed ability classes. So on the way out, I asked the deputy head about setting, and she confirmed that all subjects were taught in mixed ability class groups. She said that talented teachers can differentiate to all abilities, and that mixed ability classes prevent top students from becoming complacent, and give lower ability students ambitious targets to achieve.

AIBU to question this, and wonder if it teaching to the middle is an inevitable consequence of this, particularly in a subject such as maths? AI also BU to think that the head should have discussed this policy during his speech, if it is integral to the ethos of the school? I really wanted to like this school, but it probably will not be going on my CAF.

Unless someone can persuade me that mixed ability teaching is great.

Ds is in mixed ability classes at comprehensive. He is set for Mathis and mfl.

I do have a problem with the lack of English setting. The school trumpets the fact that it raises the standards of lower ability children, but, sorry to be mean here, ds is not at school to perform altruistic pullin-up services. I'm very pleased at the amount of value added score for less able pupils, but if that is at the expense of the most able ones (which seems to be the case) then I'm Not thrilled at all.

We're struggling with this at the moment becasue my ED has just gone from a setted middle school to a non-setted senior school.
Suddenly all those disaffected 'sink class' children are sharing tables with those who are used to putting their hands up without comment and it is causing some upset. I think it will work eventually, but they should have got the middle schools in on the act first, so that the enormous differentiation in attitude wasn't there as they started at a new school.

I cannot see the point in giving teachers a group with pupils working at up to 5 different National Curriculum levels, when there is the option of them having a narrower width of ability. In what possible universe can it be better for anyone?
Every pupil should be given the chance to reach their potential - the brightest should not be there to help raise the achievements of the middle ability children, nor should those who need more consolidation and need the pace to be slower should have to sit floundering while the teacher stretches those more able.

I teach Maths and I would leave a school that didn't set for Maths from Year 5, it's just not like teaching other subjects where everyone studies the same topics but the depth in which you answer the questions will depend on your ability, instead by KS3 at the very latest the most able children are doing different topics, or the same topics but at very different standards.

I find that the confidence of children increases once they are either not held back by weaker children having to be catered for, or for the weaker children don't sit there bemused. If I was to have spent the time this week in year 5 reinforcing the 2 times table with my year 5 bottom set the top set who are moving onto multiplying decimals would have been bored in the same room, with less teacher input.

It's not that I'm anti mixed ability for some subjects where I can see it working well and easily for children and staff, but in mine, Maths, I don't think it can be done effectively.

No way, until Christmas/summer Y7 did my head in.

And our totally mixed A O'level - U CSE class (common geog syllabus trial for GCSE) was very entertaining for all the wrong reasons. Suffice to say our teacher gave up and got an admin job a year later.

I think in order for it to work well teachers need to be very skilled and the standards of behaviour across the school need to be good.

Tolerance and helping others is all very well but it should not be prioritised over learning the subject. There is also such a thing as a high performing team.

It's funny how no-one ever advocates mixed ability anything after the age of 18!

Phineyj. Mixed abilty teaching did me no favors at my comprehensive school in the mid 1980s.

I ended up with 4 Es and 1D at Gcse in 1988. I needed help with handwriting, spelling, punctuation and concentration.
I should have been in special classes with qualified teachers to help me achieve better than
this. In the 1980s there was no help of any kind for kids like me or other kids.

I am totally against mixed abilty teaching because i believe that pupils at both ends of the academic spectrum should be taught to their needs and not to some sort of middle ground. Mixed abilty teaching slows down the top end of the class and leaves the bottom end wondering whats going on. Then again i believe in selective education so i am against mixed abilty teaching from 11 years of age.

Mixed ability teaching in science would be a nightmare imo. Firstly there are the three pathways; BTEC, core/additional and triple - with different content and exam structure, and then within the latter 2 you have foundation and higher tier, again with different content and question structure so you could effectively have 5 different groups within a classroom - i doubt anyone could genuinely teach that more effectively than a setted group.

Loshad, this is why we have 'streamed'. We have mixed ability classes within the separate pathways. Although we don't teach BTEC.
It would be absolute nonsense to teach different content and qualifications in the same groups. Not least because they all have different amounts of curriculum time.

All these things need to be considered very carefully. I have to say that I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle. Not rigid setting and not complete mixed ability. Hard to achieve though.

By the way, for people that are interested quite a lot of the evidence suggests that when lower ability children who do better in mixed classes it is not because of the more able children 'bringing the along' so to speak. The expectations and classroom ethos are fundamentally changed.

I was in mixed ability classes for everything but maths in secondary school. I remember walking out of lessons in 5th form (yr 11) as it was such a waste of time. The teacher going over "Je m'appelle, j'habite etc... weeks before our GCSE.
i won't subject my kids to that.
Oh and they teachers paired clever kids with struggling kids to act as TA.
we didn't have TAs in the 80's - are they commonplace now in secondary school?
Maybe it does work with brilliant teachers and well behaved classes but how commonplace is that?

I know it's a different system but mixed ability teaching is normal here in Ireland. Streaming by ability is not allowed except in core subjects such as Maths, English and Irish. All the rest are mixed and I've never heard anyone complain about that. Students can study for higher or lower level exams in a subject in the same class in non core or options subjects. It doesn't seem to be a barrier to achievement in any schools I know of.

LaQueen- That's quite insulting to most non-core option teachers and also primary teachers. They all teach mixed ability most of the time without any of that anecdotal rubbish going on.

Most research does not show that brighter kids are used as unpaid TA's.

I do agree that that Maths needs to be carefully considered and possibly MFL. However I do think there are some huge misunderstandings, based on people's personal school experience when they were younger, of what goes on in an actual classroom/lesson nowadays.

What most of you are describing here are teacher-led lessons akin to lectures. Anyone with an ounce of knowledge about what teaching is like today knows that you cannot do this. Lesson planning has to be water-tight to cater for personalised learning of all your pupils whether they are setted or not. Otherwise you will be failed by Ofsted or anyone else observing your lesson.

I appreciate that, I have taught for nearly 15 years and found that without studying for my Masters I would be mostly ignorant of what goes on in most schools other than my own, and the schools of a few of my friends that are teachers. It is only then that you get a clearer picture.

There is very little evidence that setting works. It comes quite low on the list of things that make a difference which the Sutton Trust publish (I think it is them)

And unless your sets have 10 pupils in, they are going to be mixed ability anyway. There is more difference between an A* and a C than there is between a C and an E.

That's my opinion, anyway.

Also, imagine what life is like for the kids who are in the bottom set for everything, with the same kids day in day out....

And peer tutoring (which is a sharper version of what LaQueen describes) comes nearly top of the list of strategies which work.

The main disadvantage that I can see for some pupils (obviously it would be an advantage for others) is if you end up taught with the same 25 people for every lesson.

I think it has been massively beneficial for my dd to be with a mix of different people for every lesson - she struggles socially sometimes, and being in lessons with pretty much the entire year group at some point means that (a) if she is having problems with some classmates then she will only be with them for part of the day and (b) she is exposed to a wider potential friendship group.

"Or, the high ability pupils are used as unpaid TAs - while the teacher deludes themselves that this is beneficial for everyone because the brighter pupil develops a deeper understanding of the necessary learning, through explaining it to slower pupils."

This is exactly what happened to DD1 when she was put in the wrong science set.

Peer to peer mentoring within a A*-C too set can conciliate learning. Explaining something complex to someone who got slightly confused in the lesson is a very good way of getting it straight in your head too.

Being used purely as a TA to explain Mickey Mouse Y7 science to class mates who scarce wake up during the school day is a total waste of time. DD was certain her only function in that class was to get the zombie practical group to do something. Mostly watch her doing the practical

LaQueen, many children in Top sets at comprehensives take Maths and English GSCE early. It's not something limited to grammar schools.

It's been happening for years. Dd1 took maths early 7 years ago.

Blimey. Only A* in the top set?

But presumably some mixed ability in the other sets, even in a grammar?

Peer tutoring is not using kids as TAs, when done properly. It is getting more able students to think around the topic and find ways of exploring it.

There is a lot on line about "Learn by Teaching".

For example:

Common statistics in education are that you retain 10% of what you hear, 20% of what you read, 50% of what you do, 75% of what you discuss and 90% of what you teach.

When you explain or verbalize something, you are using a different part of your brain than when you heard the material, and this increases your ability to understand and remember the information.

Another good thing about trying to explain a subject matter to another person is that any questions or misunderstandings you may have had come out when you have to explain the subject. Often you must work things out in your mind at that time to properly explain that material.

After teaching others, you probably will know the subject more thoroughly and thus do better in class and on tests, resulting in higher grades.