Mixed ability teaching vs sets

[redskybynight]

Just wondered about people's opinions / experiences of mixed ability teaching versus using sets at secondary level. Our catchment secondary where DS (currently Y6) will likely go next year does not set at all except for maths. Our 2nd closest secondary (that'll be the one shouting about its great results) sets in everything from day 1.

Having gone to a selective school myself I'm having a bit of a wobble about how mixed ability teaching (and this is a genuine range of abilities comp, not MC leafy enclave) will pan out. Reassurance (or otherwise, I'd rather know the worst!)?

Do we really want to go back to the dark ages when children who had SEN were treated as if they were "thick"

Its not constructive to label ANY child as thick. Its not going back to the dark ages to realise that SEN children need intensive help to gain essential life skills. A small nuturing group for literacy is a good way of achieving this. (Ie. no more than 12 students, a TA and an experienced teacher.) In a tiny group setting a teacher can differentiate for each child individually.

mini as a dyslexic I know full well what a challenge processing problems can be!

I also know that DC with such challenges can be and should be given intensive support, so that their attainment can come into line with their ability (as much as possible).

However, I don't think mixed ability classes help anyone, least of all those with SEN.

Sets should be formed on the basis of its pupils ability, attainment and attitude IMVHO. They should also be flexible.

"Surely its better to put such a child in a small nurturing group where writing skills can be developed"

The reality at DD's school is different. The lower sets have the disruptive students which hampers learning for everyone in the class. And this is a good comprehensive school in a nice area.

iseen it's strange.

In maths we seem to accept that it the more able mathmeticians need to work at a faster pace than the less able.

Yet in English lessons, there seems to be the idea that there are no pace issues. No issues of complexity.

Bunbaker, do you think its possible that the distruptive children are bright and bored dyslexics? Or maybe they are children who are underachieving for different reasons other than intelligence. Very few children lack the intelligence to achieve anything.

I feel the answer is to make the bottom sets far smaller, have more experienced staff and TA support. In a very small group the herd instinct is less of a problem. Maybe a large comprehensive would have more than one bottom set where children with similar problems could be grouped together.

Areas of the country with special schools often have seperate special schools for children with behaviour difficulties from those with learning difficulties. Prehaps its makes sense to seperate children with learning difficulties from those with behavioural issues. The only problem is that it is not quite as cut and dried as that.

PISA TESTS
Before everybody raves about the Chinese system and bemoans the English LOOK at the data.

China only allowed the testing to happen in a few select cities
they did not allow the testing to happen in rural schools where the education is dire.

Finnish schools excluded all their SEN pupils from the tests

India did not take part at all

PISA data is seriously flawed
The kids do not even answer the same questions in different countries FFS
so it is not comparable between countries

ReallyTired I don't know. There will be a myriad of reasons why the students are disruptive. I suspect that most of them are bored and unmotivated.

So what set would be appropriate for a child like mine Word? Based on his SATS level he should be in a bottom set, but he's capable of reading complex texts and discussing their content, and is creative and articulate.

He'd die of boredom in bottom set English.

Sets should be formed on the basis of its pupils ability, attainment and attitude IMVHO. They should also be flexible
Yes, which is what dc's school do.

Reallytired DS problems are mainly memory and organisation which affects his writing. A small nurturing group would not be of that much benefit. He would not have peers to bounce off of.
He has the vocabulary, the ability to express himself, just will spell the same word 5 different ways on the same page. He also will copy the wrong number across from one page to another in maths or have his calculator on the wrong setting for maths. He failed a paper because of that but everything he did was right. He now takes two calculators into exams labelled with the correct settings.

minifingers

In dcs school they would be top sets.

A lot of learning is done through discussion and group work in English.

If you put children who are weak writers in bottom sets, where does that leave the bright, articulate readers like my Ds who is shit at writing?

TalkinPeace. I do not believe. You and I actually agree on something. The gods are with me today. Feeling lucky. Off to get my lottery ticket for tonight's draw.

I teach secondary and am in favour of setting for core academic subjects i.e. maths, science, English, MFL and humanities. I think mixed ability is better for DT, art, music, PE etc. I don't think it is best for anyone to have students working at level 2 and level 8 in the same class.

I'm happy that my current school has a set up like this and I think in the main it does work. There is also plenty of movement between the sets as children blossom at different ages. We have 5 sets in each year group. Upper sets can have 30-32, middle around 22-25 and the lowest set can be 8-12, so it really is tailored to them personally.

Actually TalkinPeace. Sorry for being cheeky. I have actually said earlier in this thread that the TIMMS test are a good indicator of UK school children. Do you agree.

Portico
As a pedant, I looked up the methodology when the PISA results came out and was deeply unimpressed.
The methodology was radically different than the previous time so its not even time comparable.

In Shanghai, kids can only go to secondary school if their parents have a residence card.
ie are among the richer parts of the city population with time and money to tutor.

The nearest UK equivalent is to take the results of all the private and selective schools in London and pretend that the education system in the whole UK performs like that.

DD1 is in Year 7 and her school doesn't set at all in Year 7. From Year 8 sets start for things like MFL/ Science - but officially no setting for English/ History/ RE/ Geography/ PE/ Maths/ D&T etc... in KS3.

There's lots of verbage about how this ensures that everyone starts 'fresh' and that there are no preconceptions about who is able or not. (Which I do rather feel is a good thing).

The down side is that not all teachers provide work that lends itself to differentiation - i.e. an English assignment - poem or essay - which can be accessed by all ability levels providing each with their own challenges.

Maths is a good example - it's mixed ability and tends to be the same worksheet for the whole class and DD1 (who adores Maths) usually finishes the sheet in class. So she's desperate for more maths work - whilst struggling pupils have to go home and do 'tons of maths homework', which they frequently find really hard.

Personally I'd prefer something a bit more challenging for DD1 - but the school have encourage NRICH maths puzzles and we do our daily 5 a day on Corbett Maths. She also plays a lot of maths games on-line & on my maths.

I don't think mixed ability is necessarily better than set ability - I think as ever it's entirely what the teacher does with that set up. A lower set that has the aim to get those kids back up to speed is a good thing. A mixed ability group that helps make less confident pupils more confident by not labeling them good/ bad/ otherwise and encouraging everyone to have a go is also beneficial.

As ever I fear there is no easy solution or only one way to teach. Either method can exclude/ put off/ stall pupils. I think no matter what you do as a teacher - meeting the needs of each individual in the whole group is really tricky.

portico
TIMMS looks interesting - but the fact that it does not test children in India, China, most of South America, most of South East Asia, mainland Europe, central America or Canada
kinda shows me how pointless ALL the international comparison testing systems are.

DH was recently at a school with almost all overseas students.
Their knowledge was great.
Their ability to apply that knowledge in unfamiliar scenarios was zilch - hence why they had come to be immersed in the English attitude to learning for a couple of years.

BUT
Back to the OP
I believe in setting.
I believe in comprehensive schooling with support for detailed and flexible setting
in all subjects
in all secondary year groups

HappyCamper I think mixed ability is better for DT, art, music, PE etc

I'm not sure I agree.

DD's school sets for PE which is great. Though they let there be some choice as to what set you go to. 2 sets the Good, competitive or the less good less competitive. That way the good ones don't get exasperated by others dropping the ball, and the less good don't get humiliated by dropping the ball (or whatever). DD actually quite enjoys PE lessons because nobody minds that she's rubbish (bottom 0.5% ball skills).

School doesn't set for DT, but I wouldn't have minded if they did. They kept letting her aim for something too complicated so she ended up not succeeding.

On the other subjects. I think people they should be set by the speed / depth of lesson they can keep up with. So even if someone struggles to write essays, if they otherwise have a great understanding of English lit, then let them be in the top set for it.

"If you put children who are weak writers in bottom sets, where does that leave the bright, articulate readers like my Ds who is shit at writing?"

Learning to write is a harder task (by far) than learning to read. It is more appropriate to set by writing skills (or lack thereof) than by reading skills.

I'd agree that PE should be set, definitely. There's such a big difference between the keen competitive skilled dc, and those who really need encouragement to enjoy exercise and understand the benefits.

I just remember the relief at school once we got to fourth year and all the keen types took O level PE, the rest of us did dance, aerobics, badminton, volleyball etc with no competitive element. (Obviously, there is a competitive side to the latter two, but it was about exercise, not your team winning.)

DC school have a pathway thingy and they get to choose the sports they want to do. Both dc took golf!

That sounds like a great idea, bruffin

It's nigh on impossible to teach a class where some kids are capable of solving quadratic equations yet others are unable to count on in 2s. Yet that is a real example of the spread of ability in most schools.

Teaching to the needs of the able in Maths alongside those who struggle in Maths is like teaching history and geography in the same lesson!

Ds school set for PE games. Excellent idea. The top set contained the rugby team and those with the ambition to be in it. The middle set contained those who could play an OK game of tag rugby but didnt want to go further and the bottom set contained those that couldn't or wouldnt run or catch! DS spent a happy 5 years in the middle set with no embarassment or desire to be promoted.

As a teacher, I think ALL subjects should be set, according to ability.