mixed ability for English - just why?

[BrendaBlackhead]

Dd has just started year 7. English is mixed ability.

She was set for English at primary school and also a small group had extra lessons with the Head.

She now says English is really disappointing and it's her worst lesson by far. The teacher concentrates on the least able pupils and asks the class to do things such as describing the person next to them, or what's in their pencil case. No hint of grammar or studying any books or plays.

I have had this with ds and came up against a brick wall when I spoke to the school. The school's line is that having the most able pupils in the class brings on the weaker ones, and the exam results are not affected. But it isn't all about the grade at the end of year 11!

Today it was English first thing and dd was moaning about how dreadful it was going to be.

How can it be that it's deemed "not on" to give pupils appropriate teaching?

areyou: you and I appear to have had opposite experiences. I loved my state primary school in the 70s -- was never bored for a moment although (perhaps because) I did a lot of independent work. Where I did get bored was in my highly academic private secondary school where we were taught, unimaginatively, to within an inch of our lives. Not in all subjects, I admit, but in most.

It is a little galling to see dd presented as some princessy miss with a superiority complex sitting sponge-like passively expecting detailed instruction.

Dd is an extremely shy child, who has merely been disappointed with English so far. I'm sure she wasn't expecting Robin Williamsesque Oh Captain My Captain lessons, but something moving things up a notch doesn't seem unreasonable.

And as for having to interpret what the teacher might be asking for - well, that's nonsense. Are the weaker pupils being asked to second-guess the nature of the task? And many pupils, especially 11-year-olds, are not confident, certainly not confident enough to keep sticking their hand up to make further points or to go off-piste with the activity.

areyouthere

This post by Brenda started off stating that the work was too easy and not properly differentiated for her daughter's high ability

several have pointed out that it's pretty typical fair for KS3 - even BBC Bitesize has this on descriptive writing: www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/english/writing/writingtoinformrev7.shtml

So - point 1 - the tasks aren't beneath a high ability KS3 pupil.

----

Then the argument changed to How is my daughter supposed to know that she can play with this task? How is my daughter supposed to know she can write down more than one word and do a bit more research?

We discussed how it would be creepy to ask anything in class or tell the teacher you'd completed the task and ask what else you could do.

I don't know the context - and maybe at that school - such rash action would lead to detention - I can only speak from Birmingham schools - which if you've read a paper recently are pretty pants as a whole from all accounts (hastening to add I don't totally believe it)...

So POINT 2 I've suggested this is a communication problem.

I've suggested that Brenda's DC doesn't need to see these as rigid tasks - where she can only write the one word - or once she's written her first version of a paragraph all work must stop!

I've suggested that Brenda's DC may be timid and need that permission to realise she can do more.

I've suggested Brenda needs to speak to the teacher but that there is genuinely a lot more than can be done with such tasks and I think that in this case Brenda's DC is missing that point.

I get that starting secondary is a steep learning curve - but I'm pretty sure any school in England would say if you're stuck raise your hand and ask for help

and as I see it Brenda's DC is bit stuck - and I think talking to the teacher might result in a solution.

I get that Brenda would prefer grammar worksheets, comprehension worksheets or read Chapter 5 - but in terms of critical thinking skills (which are higher order) - it's not really stretching her DC that much either.

Research indicates that all but the most able benefit from mixed ability teaching. There may be a particular dynamic in the class that means that your DD feels she is not learning. However, the tasks set appear reasonable to me. Grammar teaching is best done little and often i.e. through starter activities and related to the theme of the lesson.
The current scheme of work appears to be writing skills; I would be very surprised if the class didn't study a novel or some form of literature after half-term. Also, in primary school, there may have been ability groups, but the teacher is unlikely to have been an English specialist.
If you are still unhappy about the teaching (which I feel is a different issue to ability groups) at half-term, you should make an appointment to see the head of English to discuss your concerns.

Brenda I feel you have been unjustly treated here, your DD should be informed about how to extend the task. BTW to a previous poster plenaries are used to check the progress made, lessons should start with the sharing of objectives/ targets/ WALT, WILF which should, in mixed ability, include a version of the all/some/ a few model to ensure all pupils are stretched. If Brenda's daughter is unsure about how to complete tasks every lesson this needs to be addressed. I would contact the school, either through the teacher themselves, HOD or perhaps the form tutor could intervene. Good luck Brenda.

The Sutton Trust report on the impact of different educational strategies, which I believe was based on a huge meta-analysis of pieces of educational research by John Hattie, indicates that ability grouping actually has a negative impact on learning. I don't know how to do links, but a quick google should bring it up if anyone is interested. I don't think this is what most people expect to read, and my feeling (with no evidence to back it up) is that very few schools will move towards mixed ability teaching on the basis of the evidence. But nonetheless. (And I do know that all educational research is inevitably open to dispute -it's not an exact science.)

Personally as a secondary English teacher I'm passionate about mixed ability English teaching, though I rarely get to do it. I believe it leads to a more diverse and therefore richer learning community within the classroom. Much, much more careful planning work required on the part of the teacher, of course, to differentiate to meet all needs. If the teacher either doesn't have the skills and experience to do so (and is not being supported), or if s/he is choosing not to for whatever reason, then I agree, mixed ability can be detrimental. I think it's hard to comment on OP's DD's class as we're not in there. I hope it turns out OK, OP. Flag it up with the subject leader if you're still concerned.

I've just had a look at the Sutton Trust info on stating. Only had a quick read but the research suggests that it is the middle and low attainers who benefit from mixed ability teaching. It suggests that those of the highest ability do not benefit and seemed to also suggest that they gained the least from group work ( although it wasn't clear on whether this was mixed ability or group work per se). So overall results will be better (and if that's the goal then all to the good) - but this isn't the same as a better learning experience for the most able.

...on setting not stating

The evidence is notoriously crap, largely ancient and/or foreign, confirmation biased and can be cherry-picked to suit any ideology. Meta-analysis doesn't obviously help i.e. garbage-in, garbage-out.

It may or may not be better, but EEF have now commissioned some due to report in 2018 where the project lead has rightly remarked on the remarkable lack of research in this area.

The Sutton Trust report on the impact of different educational strategies, which I believe was based on a huge meta-analysis of pieces of educational research by John Hattie, indicates that ability grouping actually has a negative impact on learning.

"The clear exception to this overall finding is the impact of separate teaching for gifted and talented pupils, who benefit from a range of different kinds of ability grouping. These include ‘pull-out’ classes, accelerated classes and promotion (where pupils move up a year). The identification of gifted and talented pupils is a challenge and multiple criteria for assessment should be used. The effects of these programmes provide an advantage for these pupils of three and 12 months additional learning."

It's pretty easy to see why grouping lower ability children together would be a problem is you are using group work and discovery-type learning. However, there is evidence to support the idea that all children, but lower ability children in particular, may benefit from more from explicit teacher-led instruction and considerably more practice than is usually considered appropriate.

So there is an interesting question here (but one which is unlikely to be researched). What would happen if schools that used setting assigned the best teachers to lower ability groups, and changed teaching methods to take into account, for example, what cognitive psychologists know about the problems with overloading working memory that discovery-type learning involves?

I agree that research methods in social science investigations is notoriously tricky.

I like your thinking Kestrel. I'd love to know if it would work. Too.

I agree that research methods in social science investigations is notoriously tricky.

We could try blinding, no, wait, how about randomisation, no hang on, what about a control group, no, hang on, it's coming to me...got it. Let's study one small, unrepresentative group of highly motivated volunteers who are very much aware that they are the subject of a trial, and make sure that the intervention we're testing is delivered by a highly skilled practitioner who has limitless cash. That'll do it.

Well, yes, I only ever mention the Hattie stuff when it backs up my own pre-conceived opinions, to be fair!
If we could agree (and it seems logical) that in general mixed ability teaching was advantageous for weaker and "averagely' able students, but less advantageous for the more able, surely it would be the right thing to do, in order to maximise achievement for the majority?
Still think it's all about good delivery. Personally I think I'm at my most effective teaching a mixed ability class, because it suits my teaching style (and I love it). Never get to do it any more, though. So few secondary schools have mixed ability English classes nowadays (at least that it is what my highly reliable research methodology of "thinking of some schools I know" leads me to conclude!)

surely it would be the right thing to do, in order to maximise achievement for the majority?

Why would the "most able" want to play a part in this scheme? It's effectively telling bright working class children (the middle classes will all go private) that they don't matter, and their aspiration is secondary.

There are no actual overall figures that I have ever been able to find, but of the secondary schools visited by Ofsted 4 years ago, around 40% were not setting for English, 30% for sciences, and 20% for maths. Of course, this is not a random selection, and I suspect the figures will have decreased since then. However, I also suspect that "few" might not be entirely accurate.

quite, duhgidiuhfdsli. I raised the subject when ds was at secondary school and was told that, yes, mixed-ability teaching increased the performance of the middle ability pupils in particular. I wanted to say, but didn't dare, that that was all fine and very noble, but that ds (and others) weren't there solely to help their weaker peers as some sort of altruistic endeavour. It's their education too.

We can't all hot foot it off to private schools, or in fact send our dcs anywhere else at all - there is one school here and one catchment.

Um, typing on mobile devices with kids running amuck...wish I had toyed "are" rather than "is."

Doh! typed not toyed.

I think that whatever your child's ability you can pull them up on differentiation. If the lesson does not cater to your child's ability high OR low it is not a very good lesson.

And tbh you can teach very exciting lessons to low ability children using interesting texts/classics and that should not be a reason to hold off.

If my child didn't understand the lesson because it was too hard I had no hesitation in calling the teacher and querying the homework on the basis that my child did not understand what they were supposed to do. The teacher, who was NQT explained his reasons for the homework and gracefully accepted he had NOT differentiated sufficiently or explained it properly to my ASD child.

In a similar vein you should have no hesitation in asking the teacher to set more challenging tasks IN CLASS for your daughter or explain himself/herself. He should be able to justify the classwork. Or he/she is a bad teacher.

Surely that is the whole point of a mixed ability class that even the low ability children have something interesting to contribute even if their writing or reading is deemed of lower ability. They may have good ideas (my son certainly did) which they couldn't get down on paper. I don't think it is as simple as just expecting the high ability pupils to "bring on" the low ability.

I'm not about to tell the "most able" that their aspirations aren't important. As I said, I think (not to sound cocky, am sure that I don't do it perfectly at all times, being human) that I generally differentiate quite well, in my own classroom. In particular, I do well by the "most able", according to the results my students have achieved (not that exam results are the only fruit).
But just as the "most able" shouldn't feel ripped off, nor should any of the other children, surely? Can't shake my ethical conviction that we should do what's best for the majority, if and when one knows what that looks like. If mixed ability teaching helps the majority of children, then by definition (almost) it is a good thing,

I don't think it is as simple as just expecting the high ability pupils to "bring on" the low ability.

So if, as you imply, high ability pupils benefit from mixed ability teaching, why doesn't even research with a pre-existing ideological bias in favour of it claim that?

If mixed ability teaching helps the majority of children, then by definition (almost) it is a good thing,

I'll ask again: why, in that case, should the more able stay in your classroom, if you regard their interests as secondary to "the majority".

I think you are all arguing about the wrong thing.

This shouldn't be about mixed ability classes being better or worse. It should be about the fact that OP's daughter finds the lesson depressing, awful, boring. And the teacher should not be teaching a lesson which is so completely unsuited to at least 10 percent of the class, even allowing for the fact that Brenda's daughter might be a genius, which she has not in any way suggested btw, just stated that she is upper end (so let us say 25 percent of the class unless the intake is radically skewed)

This isn't an ideological discussion. This is about Brenda's daughter, who should be enjoying her English lessons for Goodness Sake.. English should never be boring.