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!)?

I agree Essexmum69. They do the same at DD's school. It meant that DD, with her joint problems, could actually enjoy PE instead of being overlooked and pushed out of the way all the time.

So to ask a further question - since DS (pending admissions upset) IS going to a school that doesn't set, what as a parent can I do to support him/ensure that he's not overlooked and given appropriate work?

pending no admissions upset = assuming no admissions upset :)

I would actually campaign for PE setting. My games and PE lessons were horrendous. I was bullied and humiliated by the other girls and the teacher because I was hopeless. And I mean truly hopeless. Things aren't so bad today, but ds has sadly inherited my lack of sportiness and says that games lessons were spent sitting around doing nothing whilst the able pupils played football/hockey/did athletics and if he and the other lumps were made to join in the sporty ones groaned and tried to ignore them.

It's more than just a matter of hurt feelings - it means that swatches of kids don't get any exercise and fail to pursue a sport or activity because they aren't really good at it. Can you imagine doing the same with Maths? "Oh, Harry, you can't join in because you're no good at algebra. Sit on the side and watch."

I can imagine it would be deeply annoying to have to play football or tennis with someone of lesser - or even no - ability, so why does it happen?

Hi redsky:

my solution has been to encourage DD to do that little bit more. It hasn't always been easy and at times can be a battle - but I think we've got to a place where she gets why it's important to try hard/ put the effort in.

At first, because she basically had very little homework in primary, she needed help working out how to prioritise homework assignments with various deadlines.

Once we got over that hurdle - it was really working on getting her not to launch straight in on things - but to try and plan a bit - especially for things like writing tasks/ projects/ presentations.

A few months on now - DH or I frequently are shown finished work and can then pass comment. We're working on trying to get her to stop doing the bare minimum and to really do that bit more - find out more information/ research something further/ look at more than wikipedia/ etc... and really working on getting her to structure her writing (beginning/ middle/ end - arguments supported with examples) and put thought into layout/ design/ presentation.

We're very lucky in that the school have been very supportive of our approach with DD1 and also agree that she shouldn't sit on her laurels and look for the easy out. I think at first DD1 thought we were being unfair - and frequently would say 'nobody is doing this much, etc...' in a feeble attempt to get out of doing more - but when it came down to it there were other pupils who'd put in extra time/ research on projects/ essays and it wasn't just her. This has actuallly helped as the competor in her likes to be doing as well as the more able pupils, many of whom are friends.

She's also starting to realise that the extra work is transmogifying into better results and getting noticed for all the right reasons. In fact, I'd say that's why she's pretty well doing this on her own now and DH and I have really just become sounding boards or the people asked to type in the password so she can get on the computer/ tablet.

having volunteered in a bottom set class, I think it is really unfair to the students. These kids have a hodge podge of issues. Some really bright kids in this set who are simply - fidgety, easily distracted who are scoring higher that kids in sets way above. These kids are not reaching their full potential because concepts are presented more slowly and they don't get exposed to the more challenging topics.

It seems a little dodgy how decisions around which students make it into which set are chosen.

normally based on attainment, children who learn more slowly are put in slower moving sets, and yes, children who fidget and don't concentrate willl learn more slowly.

I think its with these kids - who don't always concentrate well - they end up working at a lower attainment than their potential. The right kind of homework and parent engagement could make a difference. I don't think some schools leverage parents the way the should. Speaking from experience, you learn far too late that there is an issue or you get the wrong information about the issue.

I entirely agree with you, the second biggest influence on a child's educational outcomes has been shown to be parental involvement. The first in natural ability, School itself comes some way down the list.

I don't agree it isn't matter how involved you are as a parent if the school has written off or has low expectations of your DC then your stuffed.
DS1 was at a outstanding high achieving state comp, he is rubbish at math he was in the bottom set, they were not even going to complete the curriculum before they sat the GCSE, expectations were incredibly low, they were not expected to get a C. We had lots of talk with the head of year, head of math head master etc and nothing changed it was only when we wrote a formal complaint and threatened legal action that he was was reluctantly moved into the set "where they were expected to pass" five months later he went form bottom of bottom set math to a grade C at GCSE (good enough for me) in fact the teacher who taught him actually said if we'd made a fuss sooner and he'd been moved earlier he would have easily got a B.
We're stroppy, confident, probably slightly intimidating, and definitely not easily it imitated articulate and middle class but it took us six months to get him moved what hope have less confident articulate parents got.

All research agrees the school has far less influence than the natural ability, the parental involvement, and the peer group.

happygardening

I am so intrigued by your story. Good for you for not giving up. On what grounds did you threaten legal action? I didn't even know that was possible.

I once made a suggestion that one of my ds tutoring and practice SATs suggested her end of key stage target was too low. I was pretty much ignored. Next year we moved catchment and school and the new school bumped her up a sublevel.

Trying to engage with the school got me nowhere - as well as complaining to the BOG about her assessment.

up a sublevel? a third of nothing then!

HappyG - that story is incredible.

Schools having low expectations does have a massive negative impact.

Schools can pretend they don't matter. Parents, peers and natural ability matter more. But it's only 'On average'

For many pupils schools expectations are the most important thing.

I too have had to fight schools low expectations. But I failed.

I have found every time I talk to school I make things worse. And it has been damaging in so many ways.

Thankfully DD is in a school which doesn't set much. So she isn't as effected by schools low expectations as she would be in a school that set more.

My DC's school do it slightly differently, They don't set in Y7, in Y8 PE is broadly set (7 classes, 2 top, 3 middle, 2 bottom). In every other subject there is a top set then everyone else is mixed, no second, bottom etc.

I'm not sure if this is better or not, I believe they are basing it on the research that shops the most academic children benefit from setting and everyone else benefits from mixed learning.

My children's school doesn't set. However if you fail the course then you have to retake, so I guess that holds back a few (it's not very common). They offer different options in math and English at grades 10, 11 and 12, but it appears to be a choice. So ds this year was offered pre-calculus or a more practical math course; next year he can choose between English and Communications. The idea being one is more of an academic route and the other more trades orientated. Here trades is considered a valid (and often well paid) option. We live in Canada, and our province performs very well in PISA (doesn't do TIMSS). The school system is pretty relaxed, definitely no rote learning, few exams too.

ds has done pretty well so far having been a middling performer (dyslexic and not particularly hard working either) he has really enjoyed getting much better marks recently. He likes being at the top, having the answers etc. dd struggles with it a bit, she is a very hard working high performer and gets very impatient with other people being slower or lazier than her.

Killsandra, it isn't pretence, it is fact.

I had the choice between 2 comps with identical a-c results and value-add, so I chose mainly on their setting/streaming policy.

My son struggles withEnglish (though he scraped a level 4c in y6 SATs), and I did not want him streamed low sets for everything based on his dyslexia. If you scote liw at English, you go in bottom streams for all humanities.

The other school (the one we chose) does minimal setting, also there is lots of movement, they already moved DS twice, as based on CATs he was placed low, but worked well in class so he is now middle set. Most subjects are not set though (only maths, English, MFL and PE, yes PE, as the school want the not-competitive not-sporty kids to enjoy a more gentle PE session)

It depends on your child, IMO, with a "bright" academic child, streaming/setting can be great, they go to top sets and that is where they stay.

For lower to mid- attainers it is nice to know they are not "relegated" to bottom sets too early, especially for boys who often do not start working hard until gcse!

My second DS is very academic so I'd be happy to send him to the other school if he wants.

Ime setting is better. Dd is set for all the main academic subjects but is in her form group for stuff like art, drama, music, ict.

Now I accept what she says goes on in the mixed classes probably says a bit about the school and I also fully understand that being of an academic lower ability does not mean that a child is badly behaved. However she says the behaviour is so bad in her mixed classes she struggles to concentrate. The stuff she tells me is awful......punch ups, kids walking out of class, kids sitting under desks and refusing to work, shouting and swearing at teachers, kids dancing Gangnam while the teacher shrieks at them to stop, the noise been so bad that teachers from other classes come in to try and help.

I'm just thankful that's not happening in maths, etc.

Dd reckons a lot of the lower ability kids have no interest in learning at all and just arse about.

The problems with lower sets are not the results of setting per se, bit how those sets are divided and managed. And the expectations for the children in those sets.

At primary level my DD wasn't in any high sets. Yet her lower sets were well managed and taught. There was no suggestion that pupils be allowed to misbehave.

The work was appropriate ( her twin was in top sets so I saw the difference) and she was never made to feel stupid or inferior.

She left having passed the 11plus to both the local grammar and selective private school ( didn't go to either but that's another story )

haven't read whole thread but just in case it hasn't been covered ime as an ex teacher the trouble emerges when say they are taught in form groups and a form group has just randomly ended up as a disaster. the character mix say or the level of students with ebd issues (maybe not known at point of entry) or clashes or whatever in that group create a really difficult dynamic.

there is then no escape from that dynamic for all of your lessons whereas if you were switching groups all day the effect would be watered down somewhat. i've seen this happen and the students in that group who want to and could have learned effectively are kind of stuck instead in a classroom management groundhog day.

and as a teacher of that group you look at your timetable and see they're coming up and just think oh god no it's them again i'm sorry to say. it's really hard to get to know individuals or teach to their differentiated needs because just managing the class is hard enough. all teachers may be saying that group is a disaster but trying to get anything done about it gets you nowhere as it would mean rearranging a whole year group which management has no interest in doing.

TheHoneyBadger - your post makes sense and of course the situation you describe is more likely in schools that do not select since the probability of difficult personalities will increase.

it's just group dynamics, it happens. and if that group is in form together and then in every single class together every day, every year through secondary the dynamics get more and more entrenched and so does the reputation, the pecking order within the group, the roles taken on etc.

obviously that also means if you're bullied or take the role of keep silent and keep your head down etc the chances of escaping that role or say low level bullying that isn't big enough to attract attention are slim to none. whereas if you're switching around groups there's space to get away from it.