Should I be worried?

[ReinettePompadour]

I've had a letter sent home from DD's and DS's high school and from September they are going to stop setting students and move to mixed ability classes in all subjects previously set by ability (English/Maths/Science/Geography/History).

The reasons that have been stated are that it gives lower attaining pupils access to the same curriculum as high achieving and will encourage them to do better/aim higher/be inspired by high achieving students in their class etc It also states there is little/no evidence that mixed classes do worse at GCSE than streamed classes.

I'm already suspicious of the schools intentions after they announced they were going to offer 8 GCSEs to only the top 10% highest achieving students and anyone considered below that 10%/middle/low would be offered GCSE's in only English/Maths/Science and BTECs instead for the remaining options.

A school Governor has mentioned there are no specialist staff available to teach English/Maths/Science and this way by mixing the classes they can give every student the benefit of a specialist teacher but the downside side is the larger class sizes that will now be created (up to 40 students I believe).

Is this something I should be worried about? I have already been looking for alternative schools due to the GCSE reductions but we are stuck on school waiting lists with no movement this year as it is.

Do mixed classes achieve the same number of passes at GCSE? Does setting improves grades? Will high ability students now be forgotten/ignored? Should I be worried about this because I am ?

Noble Why don't you just initially set based on SATs, and the adjust at half term? Surely it's got to be better than nothing?

Because my school takes from a billion different primaries with varying degrees of reliability in the SATs results, especially historically in terms of entry to level 6 papers.- some didn't do it at all, some entered all their level 5s. Setting, then completely resetting at half term would be heavily challenged by parents as a lot of students would have to change sets and 'demotions' wouldn't be easily taken. Setting then adjusting, where pupils would only move if they were obviously out of place would mean that pupils sets' would be heavily influenced by which primary school they went to rather than actual ability.

Teen,

The reason DC's school doesn't set until half term is because of the ... ahem .. very different approaches ... ahem ... their feeder primaries take to SATs.

One does virtually no specific SATs practice at all, and also continues Maths lessons to the end of term in July.

One has a very, very active SATs coaching routine, and all maths teaching finishes after SATs.

One coaches desperately at the 'pass' mark, but not at higher levels, and does a little bit of Maths during June...

..and some transfer from the local not-very-good private school without SATs at all.

So the SATs, certainly art the detailed level of 'which 30 of our intake are the best mathematicians?' are not a reliable indicator. The school therefore teaches in class for a half term, sets their own assessment, and divides into sets based on that. Lots of movement up to about the end of Y8, even with that procedure.

X-post, but similar point!

noble cant Thanks that makes sense. Especially the demotivation factor of having to more a child down a set after initial setting, and the parents moaning too.

DDs school takes from ~35-40 schools (though probably about 5 main ones) and sets straight away, but only into 3 (parallel thirds of the year), so perhaps that makes it easier for them.
I also suspect that with the main feeders they know which ones go full out for SATs and which don't, so I wouldn't be surprised if they include that info in their initial setting, rather than just using pure SATs results numerically ordered.

DS and DD's secondary doesn't set in the first year, and with DS intake, didn't even set until year 9. As both of them are very academic, it's definitely set them back. Both had SATS levels of 6 in English and Maths and I do feel that neither of them progressed at all in Year 7.

However, not overly concerned as DD seemed to have made it up (achieved A* in both Maths and FM) and it would seem that DS has caught up too with an excellent Maths teacher in Y9.

I think the impact has been more in terms of motivation. With two years of feeling that all he was doing was going over what he'd already learned in Y6 (his primary school provided additional lessons to boost the most able to achieve level 6), he lost his enthusiasm for Maths and this is still showing now as he enters Y10.

Just heard from a friend that her DD was struggling to keep up in a mixed maths set in year 10 of a grammar.They were in ability sets in years 8 and 9 when her DD was in bottom set with a brillant teacher who helped her enjoy maths and progress well. But in Year 10 they were put in mixed sets, so she has been struggling against some very brillant mathematicians. Her DD has lost her positivity about the subject especially as it will be the same mixed set from September, in her GCSE year. So even Ofsted "outstanding" grammars can get it wrong! The mixed sets are apparently due to finance issues.

Mind you, when the press report (Nov 2016) that 90% of schools are rated "good" or "outstanding" by Ofsted, these awards become worthless of course.