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!

I second what noble is saying.
He needs to be consistently getting not jist top marks in his class, but higher than thr tail end of the class above to make it a valid move.

At the point where he is gaining full marks or close to full marks on tests then the extension material kicks in. Or if hr demonstrates a particular aptitude in one area he may get extension there but needs to keep working on other areas.

I remember trying to climb sets at school. For someone to go up, someone else must move down. So any child wishing to move hp needs to consistently outperform thr bottom of the higher group.

@JustHope, have you said which year your DD is in? Apologies if I missed it. You are concerned about him possibly only doing the foundation GCSE, which implies he is in year 10. If so, then why not but the text book and get him to work through the chapters? Hegarty maths would help.

I know it is frustrating to see him wasting the opportunity to do something worthwhile when he had to sit in a chair on school doing maths that's too easy, (believe me, I know all about how that feels!) but you can do something about the side of it where you fear that he's falling behind.

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

What load of utter bollocks. My son has just gone to Oxford to study maths. He has been bored up to and including his further maths A level at a selective school with excellent teaching. Very very few people can match his outcome and to suggest that more than one of them was in his school does everyone a disservice.

Our head also believes in equality of outcome. In other words, everything for those who struggle, and nothing for the rest. What about the right to an education?

@noblegiraffe. Thanks

It is idiotic, however. Just not something we can do much about. Fortunately, class sizes are small but I am still teaching mixed ability across the whole ability range, all be it to a class of "only" 20-28 pupils.

I agree with a poster much earlier in the thread, that much of the move towards mixed ability is to save money. Classes can be taught in Form groups which tend to be larger than when set. Timetables can be more flexible because whole year groups or half year groups don't have to be timetabled together.
I really think this is the budget cuts hitting the heart of teaching and learning now and not just the extras. Of course it all has to be justified as being educationally best, rather than money saving.
Other ways the quality of education is being hit because of money is in terms of just 1 language being taught so no choice at all and only one for those who really are linguists. There are also increased group sizes in practical subjects such as art and DT which need more individual input - and often these subjects don't run because enough don't chose them and bigger numbers than previously are required. And what about the absolutely huge top sets where setting still occurs - groups of 35+. Sometimes it's so the bottom sets can be smaller, but sometimes it's just a way for large schools to manage to put on one less class and save the cost of the teacher over those periods.
I think we will see schools increase and increase class sizes in order to save money. Anything which leads to or needs smaller sets such as setting, such as lots of options,such as practical subjects,much as minority subjects will be under attack.
And yes, the resources will be put into helping the less able students. It will be the more able, who already have to do a lot of it for themselves anyway, who will have to do more and more. But the interventions for the weaker students will be cut too and eventually those classes will grow in size too and those children who cannot do it for themselves will really lose out.

Why isn't the country and the parents of the country up in arms about these funding issues and their implications? By the time people wake up to it and demand change, the negative effects for a generation of children will have happened and the gap between private and state education widened, after the gap had been reduced. A scandal!

The stats actually suggest that the least able are not the right people to intervene with. It's a basic progress 8 thing, because they cannot make as much progress as others ...

The new place to shove all the intervening is at the 7/8 borderline, as it goes.

The lowest ability are always stuffed; they were when it was all about C/D borderlines , too.

Hate to say it, but it's very MN to worry that the lowest achievers of society might be getting too much support!!

Very interesting thread. If still Prefer sets for maths especially.

Hate to say it, but it's very MN to worry that the lowest achievers of society might be getting too much support!!

Agreed...
With good teaching and no real sets my DD got straight As, with poor teaching (and maybe with sets - she really benefitted from aiding others in her class, acting as a "glorified TA" if you will) she'd have got straight As or similar. Sure, she wouldn't be at Oxford right now but she'd still be at a very good uni getting a very good higher education and putting her in a very good position for her future career. In contrast, her best friend got 7 GCSEs (including one A!) and a BTEC with good teaching, mixed ability classes, and a lot more work than DD put in. She didn't sit the English SAT in year 6 because she wasn't at the right level - but came out in year 11 with a C in both English lit and English language. Without the good teaching (and I believe mixed ability sets which allowed her to be more aspirational) she wouldn't have passed english, and she probably wouldn't have passed a lot of her other subjects - which would have impacted her life far more than the impact DD would experience getting As rather than As. DD's friend would not be at her first choice university right now or have the level of confidence and resilience she has developed, while DD would still be in a wonderful position - just at Uni of Manchester/Sheffield/Liverpool etc rather than Oxford.
(I know this is an unpopular view!)

I maintain that many of the children I know have benefitted from mixed ability classes. Yes, it does require better teaching. But it's certainly not the detrimental thing some people are making it out to be - it may be to some children, but surely the most important thing when considering a school is the effect it has on your child and your child alone. Many high achieving children do well in mixed ability classes, many mid and low achieving children do better in sets. The grouping of who benefits from what is surely more about attitude and mindset than ability.

I agree with a poster much earlier in the thread, that much of the move towards mixed ability is to save money. Classes can be taught in Form groups which tend to be larger than when set

That entirely depends on the school organisation surely? DC's school has 240ish in a year group. In KS3 this translates into 8 sets for maths (the only subject that is set), but 9 smaller form groups in which most other subjects are taught.

I agree with piggy re targeted groups. Ime the crap schools more interested in league tables than pupils are only concerned with supporting borderline pass kids, and leave the rest to their own devices. Hopefully progress 8 will encourage them to stop this.

Anyone know what they generally do at good independents? Dd's only sets for maths until y10, but it's hardly mixed ability. Afaik that's the norm for the schools that only really take top set in the first place. However I'm wondering about independents with a larger ability range, or if there are some that don't set in maths either? Because surely if it was educationally better, the independents who aren't struggling for funds, and where teachers are at liberty to prioritise teaching over whatever mad paperwork is flavour of the month, would be actively teaching mixed? Even at selectives if it is so great for the lowest achievers, then there is a lot of motivation for dragging up the 'low' achieving B grade kids to A. But afaik independents generally go with at least maths sets till ks4 and options. So if they aren't teaching mixed throughout why not?

DH's school is independent : sets for maths. Everything else mixed.

Is it mixed ability intake piggy? And I'm guessing that by ks4 there is the same natural setting as dd's when they choose their options?

It's reasonably mixed. There is an entrance test but you can circumvent that by getting them in at junior school. Its nickname used to be the 'comp on the hill'!

I'm not sure what you mean by 'natural setting'?

Natural setting occurs in Year 10 when the pupils have chosen their GCSEs. The brighter ones cleave towards the traditional subjects including a MFL and maybe Triple Science, so timetabling constraints largely group them together.

This happens in the dc's school so that in unsetted subjects (History, Geography, RE...) a pupil is mostly - but not always or purposely - grouped with dcs of a similar aptitude.

Lurked - never, ever (especially in education, and even more so in settings where staff never have to think about the possibility of less than good outcomes at all) underestimate the 'that's just how we've always done it' factor!

Lurked DS's school is an independent. Mixed ability intake in that there is an entrance exam but anecdotally I heard no-one failed the entrance test for DS's year (had a capital programme to fund !) They don't set for any subject in yr7. Set in yr8 & 9 for maths only and that is only two tier.

@LadyinCement that's sort of true, especially the triple science bit, but it doesn't apply to English and maths as everyone does these.

Yes, sorry, my info was based on a school sample size of one! At dc's school Maths, MFL, Science and in Yr 10 English are all set anyway so it's all optional subjects which then fall to a certain extent (well, large extent) into ability groups.

Agree that natural setting does occur to some extent at GCSE option stage (though at DC's school 50% do triple science, so there's still a fair spread of ability, and DS reports that one of the DC in his GCSE music class has no interest in music at all but picked it because it was "better than the others in the option group!").

Yes, dd says the biggest ability spread is in Music. There's a girl with Grade 8s in three instruments and someone else who said, "What's a crotchet?" in the last lesson. But dd reports that it doesn't seem to matter too much as everyone gets on with their own thing - eg composing - in those lessons.

I remember ds picked RE because it was the only thing he could do in the options group, a couple of the others being PE (he would have got a U) and Cookery (is there worse than a U?!).

Ah yes, natural setting . Got you! Otherwise known as elitism... MFL dept at my school drive me mad grooming some students and making others feel thick. they are horrified when anyone with an indicator of less than B chooses their subject!

@ladyincement that's a really is options group! Either massively philosophical or physical skills!

Odd not is! This iPad autocorrect is driving me nuts!

Ah yes, natural setting . Got you! Otherwise known as elitism... MFL dept at my school drive me mad grooming some students and making others feel thick. they are horrified when anyone with an indicator of less than B chooses their subject!

Ahhh so here is the crux of the matter. We all know that it’s all about performance and league tables, so the best option for teachers is to have the best and brightest in their class. As I’ve said previously, schools are now divided into two categories, clever and thick. Anyone predicted less than a B at the end of Y9 falls in the thick category. The clever ones are groomed, encouraged and given lots of opportunities while the rest are not always pushed in the same way. As long as they get the magic C grade that’s sufficient