Secondary School that doesn't set: any experience?

[Tomatillo]

I was at an open day for our catchment secondary this week and was surprised to find out that they have just moved to a system where there is no setting at all for any subject in any year. Has anyone had experience of this? Does it work, especially for the brightest?

The teacher who is leading this at the school said that the research showed that only the top 10% benefitted from setting and that removing setting was neutral for the middle band and beneficial for the bottom half. They also talked about the benefits for self-esteem, behaviour and teacher expectations. Assuming this is all correct (I've not yet looked it up in detail) then I can completely see why a comprehensive school (which this is) would want to do this for the benefit of everyone. The difficulty is that we're pretty sure that DD is well within the top 10% for the core academic subjects. Whilst I appreciate that things can change at secondary, her primary have made it very clear that they consider her to be exceptionally able. My own schooling was very heavily set, with sets for almost everything and quite finely graded with 12 levels for maths. This meant that we progressed very fast and I've always thought that helped me go from my very average comp to a 1st at Cambridge. I'm pretty concerned that she'll be disadvantaged if she goes to this school. I asked the teacher about the top students and they essentially said that there were issues for the top group and they appreciated our concerns.

Does anyone have any experience of this? At the moment we are feeling that it would be the wrong decision for her.

Thanks!

My school used a streaming model too Piggy, I moved across the country at the end of year 8, from an area that didn't start foreign languages until year 7 (when I did Spanish and then started French in year 8) to an area that had middle schools so started foreign languages (French in this case) in year 5 so starting high school in year 9 they put me in the bottom stream for everything except maths based on me being technically several years behind in French (but not actually behind in terms of content learned - my previous school taught in one year what the middle school taught in four). I was lucky that my dad was a governor and was very assertive so he insisted I got moved to the top stream but if I hadn't realised what was wrong, and my dad wasn't so assertive, I would have been stuck in the bottom stream for year 9 at least and potentially impacted my options in GCSEs.

electronically book slots of up to ah hour, one to one with a teacher

Wow. That's amazing! I hope that teachers could also book slots with kids that are struggling but won't ask for help, that could be useful. But how does it fit into the timetable?

I think that sometimes kids are 'invited' to book slots, yes - but there is a massive culture of seeing 'asking for help' as a positive thing there, which is banged on about from the start. My friend's daughter has just started there - she was absolutely the child who wouldn't ask for help in primary, but the discretion of the electronic booking system has given her the confidence to do it.

As for how it works with the timetable - I'm not entirely sure how it all fits together, but it seems to! It does involve the kids booking themselves out of lessons, or part lessons (each lesson is 100 minutes) - and again, that's something they're encouraged to do from the start. By the time they are balancing their GCSE courses they are professionals at it, so the kids who've taken an extra option essentially timetable that subject themselves.

I'm not sure I'm explanining it very well....

Hmm, I can see a load of kids who would happily book themselves out of a PE lesson to do a bit more maths or vice versa and I would be annoyed at kids leaving my lesson to go to some other lesser subject . But I suppose if the lessons involve watching videos or individual learning then they wouldn't be missing crucial whole-class input (all my input is crucial, in my eyes!). Would love to see it at work!

They do monitor who is booking themselves out of what very carefully! I'm absolutely fascinated by the way the school works; we moved to within a 2-minute walk of it before we'd even thought about having children, let alone where they would be educated if we did, and I feel incredibly lucky.

Natsku

Bedfordshire by any chance?

If we are going to set, then we have to be absolutely clear about giving all children the opportunity to progress if they have the ability - not fix them in their ability groups because we teach the groups different content.

^
DS in secondary has been moved down a set for maths this year. This was based on the result of one end of year test, where DS had misunderstood a suggestion by the teacher and did the harder questions first meaning that he ran out of time and didn’t complete the paper. Also there were a number from the set above moved down so some had to move to ‘make space’.

He absolutely did not struggle in the set he was in, it was neither too hard or too easy - just right. The thinking that an easier set can allow some to build confidence does not always follow as DS is now convinced he is dumb and rubbish at Maths. He feels categorised and labelled as not clever and often says talks about extra opportunities offered to top sets as being ‘only for clever kids’.

According to his teachers he can possibly move up again during the year if he proves himself. This I know is nonsense and is said to fob me off as historically set moves almost never happen mid year.

Meanwhile he is stuck doing stuff he already knows with a massive dent in self confidence while missing out on making progress. Even if he does move up, he will probably be way behind due to missed learning.

I am fighting a losing battle with the school and I dispair where I can go with this. For middle ability kids setting like this can be horrible.

The obvious solution to the ‘wrong set due to a bad day on the test’ problem is to never set or change set based on one test result only. 11-plus

@Justhope you have my sympathy. Mid year moves at my DC's school are common. Are you certain that the teachers are trying to mislead you?
Have you told them about the detrimental effect the move is having your DS's self esteem? Knowing that you'd hope that they'd either reconsider the move or at least speak with him to bolster his self confidence a bit.
Also, are you certain that the different sets aren't all doing the same topics, but maybe just with increasing depth?
A move between sets shouldn't be so final.

PS what happened to the places vacated by those who moved down into your DS's old set? Went they filled by students moving up?

Suffolk Piggy

I think Justhope's experience reinforces the argument against setting. It should never be done on the basis of one test (yes, noble 11+, quite!!) and it does raise the issue that it's not benefitting most children if the result is that they are not being taught content that they could access before that test and they're getting the impression they aren't good at the subject.
I'd also be sceptical about how easy it is to move back up once you've been moved down. One of mine managed to do it on the basis of end-year exams in French but not mid-year tests. Now I think about it, once the sets are established in year 8, I don't think there's any real movement at his school.

As a bright child in a standard comp, I loved setted lessons. They were the only ones where I didn't get bullied and where learning was actually seen as something positive. With hindsight, there was far too much pandering to those who wanted to mess about and far too little teacher time spent on the dilligent, able children in other lessons. Rightly or wrongly, my own DC are now educated privately as I want them to be in an environment where learning is valued. I was literally scared to put up my hand and speak in mixed set lessons due to the bullying that would ensue after class.

One of mine was moved down at the start of last year and was moved back up around half term.

The thing is when people love sets they forget that for someone to move up, someone else has to move down.

Usually they want their child moving up, but then would fight tooth and nail to prevent it being their child moved down (bad day/ off moment in an exam/ not their topic/ bad to judge kids on tbis or that criteria/ moving down will be bad for self esteem etc).

People rarely consider how they feel if their child wasn't in the set they want.

So you get complaints like I had that their DC is very bright so should be in set 1. Yes pushy parent but all children in sets 1/2have the same predicted grades and sit the same paper. There is no difference between them. We have more children than places in top set so there are a couple of top groups. 'Well im not happy. How do you think they feel when theu have friends in set one and they're in set 2'.

At this point we accept no amount of logic is going to appease someone who wants the right number on thr timetable (almost certainly for parental bragging rights).

There are benefits and cons to any grouping system.

But Maisey not all parents think top set is right for their child. I have spoken to 3 parents this week who think their child is in the wrong set and all of them think they should be moved down. A lot of kids like the thought of being in a class where they can shine as near the top rather than struggle near the bottom. I spoke to a few year 7 pupils to tell them we were going to move them down into a set that goes at a better pace for them, and they were thrilled because they were getting anxious about not keeping up and not understanding the content. So yes, for someone to move up someone else needs to move down, but that's not a bad thing, it's a fairly neutral thing for most pupils.

And we don't move sets based on a single test either, we use a moving average of the latest 4 tests, and we test then each half term. So for year 7, the first real movement is in October (by which time they've only fine one test admittedly, but it's our broad setting that happens rather than fixed forever sets), then we move one or two at Easter, but most changes happen at the end of the year, based on performance on at least 4 tests. Higher up the school changes tend to be end of year but if you are performing particularly well/badly then it can happen after any holiday (based on at least 4 tests and teacher assessment)

@MMzz
There have been some moves up into DSs original set but not mid year. Initially, before he returned in September his new timetable had him in the same set as previously but then in the first few days back the teachers said there was a mix up and some of them were moved down.

I have expressed my concerns to the subject leader for his year but I was kind of told that’s how it is and we will review it again. I know he’s not doing the same depth of work and his homework is just ridiculously easy.

My concern is that he will not have the opportunity to do the higher paper so he will be limited to maximum of a Grade 4 at GCSES. MIL says I should get him a tutor, whixh we could do at a stretch but why should I have to do this because they are not teaching my DS at his ability level?

School isn't just about exam results. Sure, probably dd would do very well anyway if her classes were not set. But this year she says English is infinitely better for being set. Instead of plodding through the set book by everyone taking a turn reading it aloud in class, they are expected to read it at home and then go straight into discussion in the lesson. And the discussion is more "in depth".

Also French has been further set. Last year dd was coming home really fed up as yet another lesson was spent going over basic grammatical concepts for some pupils.

On the other side of the coin, she is delighted to be in the bottom set for PE, so no groaning from the sportier people who quite understandably don't want a good game of netball ruined by heffalumps with two left feet who can't catch a ball.

Just the foundation paper goes up to a grade 5 if you're talking about maths, which is now the only subject with tiers. And there is a lot of content on the new Foundation paper that was previously only in the higher. A grade 5 is the equivalent of a high C/low B, which is a pretty decent grade tbh.

A lot of kids like the thought of being in a class where they can shine as near the top rather than struggle near the bottom
I agree.

It's pros and cons to any system.

I was making a generalisation when I said most people i meet who want to complain about sets are pushing for their DC to be higher (often unreasonably).

There are always people the situation you describe or people who want to ask questions about groupings and that is fine because they are usually reasonable.

then we moved it forward to November half term because teaching proper mixed ability [Y7] was such a nightmare.

Just coming back to this one, because I would ask again 'What happens over the 6 week summer holiday to make this impossible?'

Whether primaries teach with 'ability tables', or teach whole class with differentiated support, or whatever, 'teaching proper mixed ability' in Maths is what virtually every primary teacher does, every day of every term of their lives.

Obviously we do it for every other subject too.

What is it about the 6 week holiday between Y6 and Y7 that makes impossible for secondary teachers - subject specialists, at that - not to be able to do what everyone expects primary teachers to 'just do' every day?

Nobe, in general, I agree with what you write about Maths. I have two able children who are / were set in Maths [DS's A-level class isn't set, but the entry requirement was a 7, so it is restricted both by ability and inclination. However, i genuinely don't understand what uis so different about Y7 students after a 6 week holiday from the Y6 students they were at the end of July, such that subject specialists find it a nightmare to teach mixed ability groups.

I would agree with the points made by others above that that is a teaching problem, not a grouping problem. The approaches you use for teaching sets higher in the school may not work perfectly for mixed ability - but primary teachers do exactly that job, very successfully: does that make the task 'a nightmare', or simply that the teaching approach needs tweaking?#

I suspect the different marking cultures in primary and secondary may be one factor, though. In primary, IME, all books are marked between every lesson in the same subject - so that means any misconceptions are immediately picked up and re-grouping or support can happen in the next lesson. Marking cycles are much longer in secondary, so that loop can't be closed as fast.

Set or dont set, I dont care as long as you advertise and let parents know before hand. Most schools seem to keep it secret.

Give parents the choice and lets see which schools are most successful.

can't
You need to remember that in primary:

• most schools still have a TA attached to each class.
• in y6 many primaries pull in extra resources for extension/remedial classes (e.g. my DDs primary used the HT)
• extension / extra work can also be done by TAs during other class time, e.g. pulling out of history to do some maths catch up, which seems to be extremely rare in secondary

Additionally, although the gap at end y6 should be the same as when starting y7 (though possibly not for many as not all primaries will have the very top and the very bottom children), the gap will widen throughout secondary so by end y9 / end y11 the gap between top able mathematicians and the real strugglers will be massive.

Teen,

• Many schools, due to budget cuts, are going down to 1:1 TAs only in KS2. This also rules out extension or extra work by TAs - class teachers do it during assembly or lunchtimes etc, but there is absolutely nothing stopping a secondary Maths teacher doing exactly the same. the fact they don't at present is a choice, in the same way as it is the primary teacher's choice to do so.

• Although I phrased my point as 'what happens at the end of Y6', my point is actually valid throughout primary years - mixed ability classes for all subjects is what every primary school teacher teaches, all day, every day, even in subjects where they have no specific subject expertise (I have to differentiate gymnastics for a class containing a child with dyspraxia in addition to all the usual spread of ability. My expertise is NOT gymnastics, but I am expected to do the differentiation. It's my job)

I agree that by GCSE time, when choosing e.g. different levels of the Maths qualification, full mixed ability teaching is not practicable, though a wider ability banded grouping with at most 4 tiers seems eminently possible. However I am really not sure why an excellent subject specialist like Noble should find teaching a mixed ability class of Year 7s 'a nightmare' while almost all primary school teachers do it every day.

I think the basis of my point is that setting Year 7s is easier for teachers who are habituated to teaching sets.

However, whether setting Year 7s very early in their school career is the best option for them as mathematicians, to allow for the maximum number to be placed in the correct ability band and to be exposed to the full curriculum they need to be able to progress to the exactly correct set by the time their tier of entry for GCSE is chosen, is less clear to me.

Simply to say that since mixed ability is 'a nightmare' / 'impossible' (while it happens every day in the adjoining primary school, for 7 years) it cannot be done even if it would benefit many students seems to me to be odd.

If you can argue that it enables the best progress for every student, whatever their starting point at the beginning of Year 7, and still allows full flexibility because all sets cover the same material at this stage in secondary to make transfer between sets seamless, then of course there isn't an issue.