Secondary school with no setting and almost no homework

[thedogatemyzebra]

We had to move house over the summer holidays. So DD, who is academic and was meant to start secondary at a great grammar school, is now at the local comprehensive that we knew very little about before she started there. I was feeling ok about this, as it seems to have a good reputation, but have now found out that they don't set for anything (even maths) at any stage. DD was bored and frustrated at primary school, where they didn't have ability groups and she found it very slow going, particularly maths, and seemed to spend a fair amount of her time helping the other children. I'm now worried that this will happen again, and that she will be stuck very slowly going through the exam curriculum for 5 years. They also give almost no homework - she apparently does her maths homework while walking the short distance between school and home.
There are no other realistic schooling options where we are. Have others been in this situation? How did you support your DC?

Sorry guys have reported my own post

trifle no it doesn't. Read the link a PP gave to oldandrew' blog about the quality of evidence about this. Google criticisms of Jo Boaler - her research should be taken with a heavy pinch of salt.

I went to a talk by Dylan Wiliam once who said 'if the evidence tells you something you know isn't true, then that means you need to look again at the evidence' (e.g. Class size doesn't matter).

I know as a maths teacher that I can't effectively teach a wide range of abilities in my class. We do it until Y7 are setted so I have some experience. What inevitably happens is that some groups are left to fend for themselves while you give different level input to different groups. The weakest struggle, the top are bored.

Now it might be that there are fantastic teaching methods whereby this doesn't happen but I've never seen it done well and I'm not good at it. Which means, for me (and many other teachers with similar training/experience), classes will not do as well taught by me in mixed ability as they will if they are setted.

On top of that, the evidence is poor quality.

Its sounds like my secondary school - which was awful. We were eventually set for maths in GCSE year, but that was it.

My overriding memory of it was just being very, very bored most of the time. I did though manage to get decent grades through doing workbooks and I'm sure there must be some good online programmes now.

Are you planning to move again?

Certainly don't want to move again, having just made a massive move! If I'd known about the non-setting we might well have made a different decision about moving or where to move to though.
I can understand that it is good for children to be with other children who are a bit better than them at the subject. I'm not convinced that it's good for children who struggle with maths to be in a class with children who find maths easy. And I think it's generally accepted that it's really bad for the children who are at the top of the class. It's also unpopular with the teachers. I just don't get it. Surely they could at least have 2 or 3 sets, so that there isn't such a massive difference in ability and interest levels in every class. It's an average sized comprehensive.

I just don't get it.

It's almost certainly because they don't realise how poor the quality of the evidence supporting mixed ability teaching is, and believe they are helping lower attainers by not setting. It's a political/philosophical thing.

Also, most people who take this view won't agree that it's really bad for the children at the top of the class. They will probably say that such children will always do well, wherever they are.

Maybe those children will in the main still do well - if by well you mean that they will do ok in their 5th year exams. But is that what schooling is all about?
My older DC went to grammar school, and the top maths set were literally years ahead of the bottom maths set. They didn't just focus on passing maths GCSE, or even on getting A*s at maths GCSE. They covered that, but focused on doing the level of maths that those children were capable of. The result was that all the children I ever met at that school loved going to school - they were all challenged, at the right level for them.

Zebra I absolutely agree with you that "doing well" shouldn't just mean doing well on exams. It's an artificial ceiling to achievement, that at GCSE level at least is relatively low for able children. I'm just quoting to you what people with those beliefs will (and frequently do) say. As I mentioned above, our local secondary doesn't set except for maths, and I feel my younger daughter has been disadvantaged by this. I'm afraid I don't have any advice for you, though.

I

I was a high flyer generally at school went on to get an Oxbridge degree yadda yadda, but not great at numbers.
I was completely happy to be in the bottom set for maths, I didn't want to work with people who were miles ahead of me and to be taught at my own level. It didn't affect my self esteem or confidence in the slightest. Obviously, I was good at some other things but still. The argument that the same kids will end up in the bottom set with disruptive kids is a compete non-sequitur, schools need to sort out their discipline if this is the case.

OP, you have my sympathies, not sure what to suggest though

The "setting" / "no setting" argument cannot be generalised
either between schools
or between subjects

from the reading I've done for DHs work
in STEM subjects, setting is beneficial because the ability to grasp concepts and run with them varies significantly
in Humanities subjects, setting is less useful because forming a discursive argument can be assisted by having to think it through with those who think in a more concrete fashion

PE will generally be in sets - so that county athletes are not held back by bored geeks
ditto any sort of "performance" subject

I linked above to Thornden - it is well known for not setting
it is well known for stratospheric results
it is also a purely geographic comp - no selection in any method other than distance / admission code

Talkin it may not be a selective school, but its intake is very skewed towards the higher end, there are barely any lower attainers which means that setting isn't as vital as a school with a much more solid spread of ability.

And if you look at achievement by prior attainment, the lower attainers do really badly. It looks, in fact, as if Thornden doesn't really cater for them at all, probably because there are so few of them and they don't set, so they just get left to struggle.

If I had a low ability child I definitely would think twice before sending them there, and they're the type of child that mixed ability teaching is supposed to help!

noble
you have indeed identified the achilles heel in any covertly selective school - resting on laurels.
the school that people "avoid" is Toynbee - which actually turn out nicer kids

tbh the C'Ford bubble is a surreal thing in many ways ;-)

in Humanities subjects, setting is less useful because forming a discursive argument can be assisted by having to think it through with those who think in a more concrete fashion

I've seen this argument before, but to me it sounds more like a rationalisation than something that has actual solid evidence behind it. Certainly it hasn't been my daughter's experience. What more able children need in humanities is, on the contrary, plenty of exposure to, and a chance to practise, the more sophisticated academic language of that particular discipline, so they can express themselves fluently and coherently in it. They also benefit from an environment where they can argue and discuss at this more sophisticated level, and can realise that there are other people their age who like academic work and don't label it as "not cool".

Also, the pressure from higher up to do "fun" and "active" lessons, in order to keep the less able "engaged" in mixed ability lessons, leads to serious dumbing down, certainly in our local school. The result is a huge amount of time wasted for the more able.

And finally, languages are humanities, and with them the dumbing down at GCSE level is staggering, producing a huge gap between it and A level. At least in set lessons children might get a chance to be pushed beyond the startlingly low level required, even for an A*, at GCSE, to give them a good basis for studying the language at A level.

I do not believe that many subjects -maths, mfl for example can be taught as effectively in mixed ability classes .
I do however believe that research and statistics can be manipulated to give whatever answer you want.

I agree, with maths and MFL I think the students themselves are happier if they are in sets that are tailored to their needs. I am amazed the school doesn't have to set at some point, partly because GCSEs differentiate in grades and tiers and also because the maths content will be harder and broader. Moreover, Ofsted would require evidence that they are differentiating work at the high and low ends of ability. I don't know of any school in my area that doesn't set for a range of subjects in year 7 so there appears to be widespread scepticism about 'mixed ability' teaching.

I linked above to Thornden - it is well known for not setting

They set for maths from year 7. They also set for other subjects from year 9 or 10, I think. Imo top achievers don't do as well as one might expect (from demographics, lots of academics/IT workers/doctors/lawyers parents with higher degrees) but this is partly concealed by the fact that A/A star are not split in tables. Interesting to see what happens when the new 9-1 grading comes in. Progress 8 is apparently "only" 0.4.

there appears to be widespread scepticism about 'mixed ability' teaching.

It would be interesting to have proper, up-to-date figures about how extensive mixed-ability teaching actually is. The only thing I've ever been able to find on this subject is 7 years out of date, but it certainly indicates that mixed ability teaching was pretty common then:

Of about 18,400 classroom observations conducted by Ofsted inspectors in secondary schools last year (2008/09), roughly only four in ten represented set lessons:... at secondary, this data suggests that around 53%, 70% and 60% of lessons are set for English, mathematics and science respectively

www.gov.uk/government/publications/streamlining-within-english-comprehensive-schools/streamlining-within-english-comprehensive-schools

I could have written the first post based on my daughter's experiences in her first half term of y7. Virtually no homework, few books brought home with any meaningful teacher comments, and mixed ability classes, apart from maths. Guess what her favourite subject is? I am also a former teacher and have taught a key subject both mixed and setted, and I am a huge fan of sets. Indeed, a 'set' of students is still a mixed ability group essentially, but it does narrow the ability gap somewhat which makes it easier to plan to challenge all students and to use teaching methods suitable to the class. I agree with the previous poster who argued that some less able students may benefit from shorter, quick paced activities in order to engage students who might otherwise become disengaged. This method is not the best method for more high attaining students who can cope with more extended tasks and technical language. My daughter is very bright, but lazy and she is not being stretched at all in most classes.

In contrast, my younger son is very weak. I hope that he is setted too when he starts secondary school, especially since support staff are being cut left, right and centre. He should be in a small bottom set with staff who know him well. If he is in a group of 30 like my daughter, he will struggle a lot. Coasting like my daughter will be the least of his problems. My dread is that he will be put in a set up from the bottom. Bitter experience tells me that this is a mix of the weak and the disengaged. Maybe wrong to say it, but often so true.

To change the subject slightly, I have worked in a number of high schools in different roles, and I think one of the massive problems that high schools have is that they do not give enough consideration to Transition. Most have systems in place to ensure students settle in happily from a pastoral point of view, but many many teachers have little idea how yr6 operates. Year 7 students are accustomed to responsibilities at primary school, and many have worked like Trojans to prepare for their SATS but often students are babied. Secondary teachers are dealing with so many changes to the high school curriculum, that not enough know how demanding y6 is academically. My daughter has told me that she does not have to work as hard in y7 as she did last year, and that her classmates get away with a lot more bad behaviour too. But that's a whole different kettle of fish. I think y7 is such an important year, but schools really miss a trick when they let the momentum built up the final years a primary slide. I have seen it happen time and again. Not enough subject specialists to staff the timetable - give yr 7 the non specialist etc.