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!

Well, on my sample size of precisely 2 less able children, I think setting for maths in y7 is beneficial.

I would go so far as to say, it would have been beneficial in primary too, had my DDs not been at a single form entry school. (I don't think setting by mixing two year groups would have been beneficial).

can't, I don't understand how y6 teachers do it tbh. I have the utmost respect for any teacher who manages to differentiate a maths lesson every day for y6 pupils, let alone all the other subjects you do.

You do also need to remember though, secondary teachers have several classes to run interventions with. I only have one lunchtime where I am not running an intervention with my GCSE and A Level groups, and that's only because I'm on detention duty that day. I can't use assembly time to run an intervention because I have my form when other yeargroup are having assembly. I run revision sessions after school on the days I don't have meetings. So it's not that I don't want to run extra things, is that I'm already running too many extra things and there's physically no more time to run things for the younger groups. I definitely could teach MA classes in y7, but it's adding to my already considerable workload when the benefits are not properly proven and no training in mixed ability teaching has been provided. We have been trained to teach in sets, by expecting the whole class to be at roughly the same level, and if you want us to do it differently then we need to be trained to do that. The "mixed ability" teaching I experienced as a pupil many years ago was basically teach yourself maths via booklets, and it didn't work well for a lot of kids. I've never experienced (either as a pupil, student teacher, or as a teacher) successful mixed ability teaching in maths.

I'm really hoping that once the new mastery curriculum is fully embedded in primary schools that we see a smaller range of abilities arriving in year 7. Currently we have pupils arriving who still need numberlines to add and subtract, alongside pupils who have absolutely understood everything in the primary curriculum and are ready to move on rapidly. I don't think it's fair on either end to have to endure the same lessons. I don't think it's fair at the top end of primary either, but I have no way of changing that.

In specific terms, what does the mastery approach involve?

I am guessing that it means making sure that maths facts are memorized etc. before moving on to the next stage.

Dss' old primary has started using the mastery approach - Inspire Maths, which is based on the system used for teaching maths in Singapore. From what I understand, it's a whole school approach with a clear progression where children are all taught together in their class, not put in different ability groups, with a clear spiralling of concepts through each year of primary school (teacher books, student books, practice books, etc, all included, and all staff taught how to use the approach effectively). The idea is that high standards should be set for all, that children are seen as fast graspers or slower graspers rather than able and less able, and that who is a fast grasper and who is a slower grasper can differ in each lesson, depending on the area of maths being taught. Those slower at grasping the concept being discussed must be identified and misunderstandings and misconceptions dealt with as they arise, or as soon as possible afterwards, rather than pulling those children out of the next lesson to work with a TA or in separate groups while the rest of the class move on without them or letting them move on to something else without having fully comprehended what they did before in the hope it will make more sense to them next time that topic is visited. Maths problems are discussed and tackled from several different perspectives in class, so as to gain a deep understanding of mathematical concepts, moving from concrete examples to pictorial examples to abstract examples as understanding deepens. In other words, rather than rushing through the curriculum, gaining a shallow understanding with potential gaps where misunderstandings and misconceptions were not picked up on, the intention is for all children to gain a very thorough understanding of the basic maths concepts on which all higher level maths is based, so that all children are given the best possible chance to access higher level concepts later on. The faster graspers are challenged by going deeper into the possible uses of the concept being taught and being expected to think about the same problems in more than one way, rather than being moved on to a different, discrete topic altogether. That way, they learn the links between different concepts and that there are often several ways of viewing the same problem.

Or something like that! You can probably tell I'm not a maths teacher!!

Anyway, the idea is that it reduces what is viewed as the "long tail of underachievement" that is currently seen in maths in English schools.

Ps my understanding is also that teachers are not expected to slavishly follow the books or only use the materials in the books.

OMG an actual use of the term 'grasper' in the wild. A training slide from Ofsted was shared on Twitter in July where 'high attainers' should be renamed 'rapid graspers' and pretty much everyone thought it was awful. Poems were written!

Sorry, round, but it's an awful term . I get that it's trying to convey that the kid who rapidly grasps something one lesson isn't necessarily the kid who rapidly grasps it the next, but I think pretending that everyone is starting each lesson with a blank slate doesn't help anyone.

it's adding to my already considerable workload when the benefits are not properly proven and no training in mixed ability teaching has been provided

Two rather different points being conflated, there. I have no doubt that the latter is true - but there's a useful body of evidence regarding the former.

I know as a teacher (primary) I found it almost impossible to teach maths in a non setting school without differentiating what I was teaching so much that effectively the children were in sets but just with one extremely harassed and exhausted teacher trying to prepare, teach and assess all lessons at at least 5 different levels.

I know as a parent I struggled to keep ds motivated and turning up to school in the year he was put in lower sets due to a marking mistake (year 9). The school spotted the mistake and put him up in English but he ended up doing all the humanities subjects with less able groups. He was so BORED and miserable, not because of bad behaviour in those sets but just because all concepts had to be gone over and over and over before anyone seemed to 'get it' and the level of discussion and general knowledge was less challenging and interesting. He really got quite turned off school that year and it could have gone either way.

OP, if you're still reading, I'd look round carefully at what other school options there are.

can't I agree that part of the reason I find teaching mixed ability at the start of Y7 such a nightmare is that I absolutely don't have the right teaching approach. It's not something I've been trained to do, nor is it something I've gained experience in over the years I've been teaching. But I don't agree that practically all primary teachers are teaching mixed ability maths - my DS told me only yesterday that he is (in his own words) sat on the 'nerd' table for maths and he knew that they were the nerd table because they always get given the harder work to do. He's in Y4. I also know of level 6 booster classes being put on by specialist maths teachers in various primary schools, intervention for weaker students and I know from here that 1:1 TAs are often used to help other lower attaining pupils and not just the child they've been assigned to.

I'm sure what goes on in your classroom is amazing and I would love to see it, I just don't believe it's replicated in primary school classrooms across the country.

One other thing - in your primary classroom you have the same kids all day every day. You know them really well. The other thing that changes between Y6 and Y7 is that they go from having a general practitioner who knows them really well to a subject specialist who might see them three hours a week.

Multivac can you provide me with some links to the evidence about mixed ability teaching in maths being demonstrably better for the pupils. In UK secondary schools, because other countries have different systems leading up to the secondary school age so evidence from elsewhere can't necessarily be translated to the UK. I'm genuinely interested, as I have never found any proper evidence for it (admittedly I've not spent a lot of time recently looking for that evidence because I've been snowed under trying to teach the new GCSE syllabus and the new a level syllabus).

Ms the evidence is more about setting being harmful, if the default is non-setting with excellent teaching (e.g.) Good teaching is by far the strongest indicator of success, regardless of perceived ability (who'd've thought it?)

Dd's primary had amazing teachers and an ability spread that had an outlier from each end, and the only reason mixed ability worked is because they had enough experience and staff to differentiate. But without taking anything away from the brilliant juggling act the school did, the ma didn't meet the needs of the far ends as well as it met the majority. Not really a problem at primary but not ideal for secondary.

It also heavily relies on every single teacher being very experienced/ excellent. Possible at a tiny primary, but very few secondaries have 100% excellent, experienced teachers with the support staff required for every lesson within every subject.

And having read some of the examples of what is offered as challenge within a maths topic to able dc, I am reminded just how lucky she was that her school didn't teach mixed maths. And luckier still that at secondary she still has teachers that realise able mathematicians need different work, often in different topics to what the average or lower ability dc need.

Progress 8 isn't much use imo for judging whether ma holds back the most able. Recorded primary achievement is capped, so an able child can stagnate through secondary and still show good progress with a top gcse grade. On the other hand, a very able dc could come from a primary that couldn't be arsed offering the old level 6, and that dc could then stagnate through secondary and leave without a top GCSE either but still appear to have made good progress. The only time it shows otherwise is when an averagely bright kid has been hothoused and spoon fed fantastic ks2 results, not surprisingly doesn't get corresponding fantastic GCSEs and the teacher/school is blamed for lack of progress.

I'm also confused by the p2p benefits. If it is such a great way of securing knowledge, why is it mainly the most able who are the beneficiaries of this excellent learning method? Surely all abilities would do it equally if it's of personal benefit?

noble re the cognitive load theory- dd and I have had similar experiences and call it 'what am I missing?'

On occasion people have given a method/ explanation etc for something that has confused one of us because the concept is too simple, therefore when they expand on it we are looking for the reasoning/complexity which we assume must be hidden somewhere. And not just us, I've talked to other people who have had the same experience.

What point are you trying to make, lurked? If any?

multi what are you struggling to understand about my post?

I've read that article before multivac. I've just read the linked research within it but only found a very small section about setting, none of which is specific about which subjects and key stages they are talking about. I'm about to go look for the research papers it quotes to see how specific they were in the actual research.

The article specifically talks about negative effects of early setting, particularly in primary schools. Currently we are meeting children in secondary school who have had years of "ability tables" in primary, or in some schools they have actual sets of they have enough classes in each yeargroup. Like any educational change I think the change needs to happen from the bottom up, so removing sets from primary schools needs to happen before we will be entirely successful in removing them from secondary schools. I know that the new curriculum for primary schools is supposed to address this, but it's still too new to see the full effects yet. Hopefully it will have a positive effect and we will be in a position where all pupils stand a chance of understanding the whole secondary curriculum, at which point I will whole heartedly embrace mixed ability teaching. Currently though, pupils arrive at secondary school with a massive range of ability, and a huge range of perceptions about their ability, so we need to make allowances for those differences in the way we teach.

This is how it should be done - we need as many pupils reaching the minimum required grade as possible and this simply would not happen if those of lesser ability were just thrown into lower sets where no one could give a shit about them.

I'm a firm believer in equality of outcome - setting by ability goes directly against this.

just thrown into lower sets where no one could give a shit about them

Let's not compare the best of mixed ability teaching where everyone receives differentiated input personalised to their particular level of learning and no one is left to struggle or is bored, with the worst of setting where kids are told they're shit and left to fester in bottom sets, or are stuck in the wrong set going at the wrong pace with no way out.

Caretaker but doesn't that have the opposite result? Any school that advertised that ethos (or practiced it) would soon find that every motivated parent of dc above that minimum level would do their upmost to avoid it. So all you do is sacrifice the above average poorer dc who don't have other options. Essentially putting the full burden of the lower achievers on a small group of disadvantaged higher achievers whilst the more advantaged higher achievers get a good education elsewhere. As happens round here.

I do agree that bottom sets shouldn't be dumping grounds, but like anything in education they don't in theory need to be, and certainly not all schools use them that way.

My bottom sets would definitely argue the point that ALL their teachers care a great deal about them. We do care and they know it. I absolutely love teaching the lower sets, they are smaller groups so I can actually tailor my lessons more closely to what they struggle with on a personal level. And I have more time to spend with each pupil to address their misconceptions.

where all pupils stand a chance of understanding the whole secondary curriculum

Call me a person with a fixed mindset, but I don't believe that will ever happen. I believe that just like Michael Phelps has physical advantages that make him particularly suited to swimming, other people have mental advantages which mean that they will be better at picking up mathematical concepts. Practice will make you better at those things, absolutely, but given that the mentally suited person is still learning while you learn, they will always be ahead of you.

I found it interesting that my dd who has always done very well at school (early September born, mature and very orientated to pleasing her teachers) got very fed up with slow classroom pacing when she was in a class where the teacher wanted to make sure everyone learned in a very structured way in a subject (English) dd naturally excels at. My ds who had a very bumpy ride until he was 15/16 really enjoyed feeling that he was excelling and able to help others so much that he volunteered to be a peer tutor. I suspect that the difference was the quality of teaching, but different children respond differently to being in classes where some of their peers really struggle.

I also think it's unwise to assume that it's always less academic children that behave badly. The worst behaviour I've ever experienced at school was when I went to a public school for sixth form. Very clever and incredibly privileged children can be nightmares too.

I can't see the benefit of 1 teacher trying to divide her time in the lesson between multiple ability levels.It makes no sense and what about further maths GCSE?