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!

No? Top set Y8 are learning trigonometry. Bottom set Y8 are learning addition and subtraction of negative numbers. Put them in the same room and they might as well be learning French and Geography.

I went to a comprehensive that didn't set except in maths and even then it wasn't very good setting (6 form entry, half the year doing maths at a time. Only half of "top set" did the higher paper).

I hated it. I was intelligent and naturally academic so would've been in top set for most things except MFL. IMO mixed ability fails everyone equally: high ability are allowed to coast doing just enough but not being stretched, low ability get left behind and disruptive, middle ability get ignored and forgotten.

I have good grades but they could've been better if I had been pushed (by home or school or both). I started year7 eager and conscientious, I left year 11 used to doing just good enough with minimal effort.

I'm not an expert in Maths teaching, but the thread isn't just about you Maths but setting generally.

My dd was happier when she was moved down a set in English. In year 7 she complained the others wrote too fast and she couldn't keep up. Her grades actually went up once she was moved down as the pace suited her better.

We are planning to apply for year 6 dc to go to the same school as older dc. Think I'm going to check they are planning to continue setting as it would put me off if they weren't.

They manage to teach maths without setting over here up until 15/16 so it is possible, but class sizes are usually smaller (24+ would be considered overcrowded) - they would really need smaller classes and/or more teaching assistants per class.

Would you put a group of fluent French speakers in the same lesson as beginners?

I'm a primary Y6 teacher and come across this a lot. I can see the pros and cons for both if Im honest, depending on which group of children I consider.

If I had a lower attaining or even middle ability child I'd send them. Behaviour in classes would be better and they've got the example of the higher ability children to work towards.

If I had a higher attaining child, no chance. Look at your child and be selfish.

Oh and we set for maths in Y6. I couldn't start introducing algebra to my higher group when I have a child in my class who also cannot do number bonds to 100. Yes I could give the highers some work to be getting on with, an 'open ended task', but I wouldn't be teaching them anything.

Within Maths they are working at different skill levels or on different topic areas, surely, but with a broad continuity in terms of what they are learning?

But the trigonometry is as irrelevant to what the bottom set are learning as the Geography is irrelevant to what the people studying French are learning. Two entirely separate lessons going on in the same room, coming under the label of 'maths', sure, but practically no different to French versus Geography. They need totally different input, different activities and will not be interacting with each other. And because of the two tiers at GCSE, the brighter students will be learning topics that the foundation students will never learn.

It is perfectly possible to teach mixed ability and stretch the top end.

I've taught sets and full mixed ability and there's pros and cons to both.
I prefer teaching losely mixed ability e.g. you wouldn't have very top and a child working at primary level in a class but you would generally have a reasonable spread.

Most schools ive worked in set for maths even if they don't elsewhere in school.

It's always parents of able students who want sets. I also find it's parents of able kids who are the first to complain because their child is in set 2 and not set 1 even though both groups have A/A students in it and both groups follow the same schemes of work, all students are taught to A and will sit the same exam. It's infuriating because they're obsessed with the number on a timetable as if that's the deciding factor on achievement.

I taught MA, without TAs.

It was great. No sink sets. No sets where children who speak English as a second language congregate, which improved their skills. No "miss, this is set 8, we're dumb."

I'm not an expert in Maths teaching, but the thread isn't just about you Maths but setting generally.

Why the bitchy remark? There are lots of comments on this thread about schools which make an exception for maths when it comes to setting so it is surely pertinent to discuss why, when the OP is talking about a school that will not set for maths either.

DS just gone to Upper School and in mixed sets at the moment which is a new thing and wasn't happening when we applied. There's some confusion whether there will be one top set after Christmas or more sets. Very unhappy year 9 parents last year and local tutors very busy. They will be set for year 10 and by all accounts that going better for current year 10's who were the guinea pigs last year.

DS really bored. English teacher announced they would be studying things very differently to how they did in Middle school. DS's verdict 'I've been doing that since year 5' Maths not going well either. I'm pissed off, they spent a term in Middle school preparing for tests for Upper School and it doesn't seem to have made any difference.

Hopefully things will settle down and I figure with any new school there is usually a settling in period of a term but they are due to start GCSE syllabus in Core subjects after Christmas. I'm not very happy about situation really and would have chosen differently if I had known.

Because you're making the thread about your subject. And you shout people down and make ridiculous analogies and make people out to be thick and stupid and dimwitted if they disagree with your stance.

So at the moment, I teach in a deprived area: not unusual. Last month we took children with the lowest literacy and numeracy levels, social and behavioural problems, chaotic home lives, little if any access to resources at home to help them learn and stuck them in a room together. Then are surprised when they leave at 16 with nothing. It is crazy.

Because you're making the thread about your subject. And you shout people down and make ridiculous analogies and make people out to be thick and stupid and dimwitted if they disagree with your stance.
I don't think noble has been doing that

Then I apologise. But it would be nice to discuss and learn from one another. Not "I am right and you are wrong."

And you shout people down and make ridiculous analogies and make people out to be thick and stupid and dimwitted if they disagree with your stance.

Eh?

I would hold my hands up and say that I would struggle to meet the needs of a very mixed ability group in the way I would want to, and that my subject (science) is very content heavy and and being able to move along at a common pace for the group is much easier . Also I actually like a well managed bottom set. If you pitch the work at a level that is accessible to the group in front of you then some of the behaviour problems will disappear , really what kids want is to feel sucessful and not to constantly feel bottom of the heap. I think it’s easier to achieve that feeling in a room where everyone is moving together more or less, than where some students are reminded constantly that they are relatively less able. I have limited direct experience because my school used to set from year 8 and now sets from year 7, but I know how I approach my different sets and I think I would be less effective as a teacher if we stopped setting. Clearly there are teachers who are very skilled at differentiating but if that isn’t the majority then overall it will make everyone’s lives harder. Being able to keep bottom sets small allows for more support , now that TAs are thin on the ground. I have a year 8 of 12 kids all with SEN and I love teaching them . Similarly I have a reasonably challenging set 4 gcse group , and while they are tiring to teach we are staying positive because all the work we do takes into account that writing is not a strength and they need lots of scaffolding. Plus there are only 20 of them and that means I have room to spread them out. My top set has 32 kids, but no behaviour issues. We have in the past run a system in year 9 which worked well- a set 1 and 2 then lots of middle band kids mixed up and then a nuture group- so I can see that mixing it up in the middle can work , but that before we started doing GCSE in year 9. Interesting to hear the experience of others though .

I think Nobel is making a very good point. How can a school not set for maths when at gcse there's two different exams depending whether going for the higher or intermediate paper. So kids doing the higher will do topics/areas the others don't need to do. How can this work?

Certainly in English the tiers have vanished.

But in any case secondary school isn't just GCSEs.

Maisy It's always parents of able students who want sets That's not surprising when teachers on this thread have said it's not the best thing for the most able students.

It works fine for able children IME.

I went to a secondary school that didn’t set and it was bloody awful to be honest. I was grouped with a load of people who didn’t want to be there, so it wasn’t cool to be clever and I had to do no work and pretend I was thick for several years in order to avoid being bullied. Also, i was pushed at primary school so the work I was given at secondary was much easier than what I had already been doing at primary school, meaning there was little point in me being there.

When we got to GCSE level we were streamed but only for maths - everything else was mixed ability. My results were fine in the end, I went on to get good A levels and a good degree, but I do wonder how much better I would have done if I’d actually been given the opportunity to learn something.