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!

You might not get a say once a child is at the school (unless you move them) but you will when choosing a school by whether it sets or not. I imagine schools that do set will end up with a disproportionate number of more able children.

It is nothing to do with teachers choice or preference and everything to do what research and data analysis has shown. Setting is not seen as being beneficial for the majority of pupils.

For the record many teachers are more than happy with the lower set and to say it is demoralising is inaccurate- hard work, yes, demoralising no! We are there to teach the children and meet their needs whatever their ability!

Wow @florentinasummertime.

It works fine for able children IME.
If your objective is to ensure they don't fulfill their potential

Dd is of similar ability level and we have ruled out any school which does not set from yr 7.

Primary school mixed ability has been difficult enough as it is, and she’s found it hard to stay motivated on a few occasions. I don’t think she’s ever been taught at her own pace, and in a couple of subjects she has pretty much taught herself.

If secondary worked in the same way, she would give up. I don’t care about exam results, all I want is for her still to love learning.

Well, I am confident I managed to do this.

Bit it is interesting how sometimes it is acceptable to palm SEN children off onto TAs, and say things like, "He isn't the only pupil in the school!" and put children into isolation so they are out of lessons.

But heaveb forbid a high achiever compromise!

It is also worth remembering that even set classes will have a range of ability.

How do subjects like Music cope? If someone is a gifted violin player, someone else a talented singer - genuine question?

Someone mentioned Thornden in Hampshire but it does set for individual subjects quite a bit: Maths, Science, MFL - and even PE now (hurray! on behalf of picked-last people). They set for English in Year 10.

I agree that no setting at all is following some anti-elitist mumbo jumbo and certainly does not help those at the top, who are either inwardly groaning at the lack of pace in the class, or made to act as unofficial teaching assistants, under the guise of "sharing knowledge".

If I were you, OP, I would run as fast as you can from this school. Your dd is not a guinea pig and definitely should not be sacrificed on the altar of the Head's principles.

Fklorentine,

Interesting point. DS has just finished GCSE music in a completely mixed group, ranging from those with a couple of grade 8s and heavy extracurricular music involvement in county orchestras etc all the way to self-taught guitarists and singers. The grades ranged from E up to A* - pretty much in line with predictions/ expectations, so everyone reached their 'individual potential', if that makes sense?

DC's school sets for maths from Y7, other core subjects from Y8. Maths, English and science remains set for GCSE, but all other subjects are mixed ability because they have traded option flexibility for the opportunity to set - so for example they might have history or Geography in 3 or 4 of the 5 option blocks, rather than having it in a single option block but run 3 or 4 sets.

Extremely high GCSE results for a comp. No noticeable difference between the performance in the 'set' and 'non set' subjects - looking at A* to C by subject grouping on the DfE website, it's pretty near identical across maths and sciences (set) and humanities (all MA), a little higher for english (set) and a littler lower for languages (unset but all those doing 2 languages are in 1 of the option blocks so that does have a 'higher' set feeling to it). Value add identical across Science, Humanities and Languages.

(I realise that A/A rates would be a better measure of whether high attainers are affected by the lack of setting outside Maths / English / Sciences: IME, the pupils with strings of 8s / 9s / As have them across the whole range of subjects, so the lack of setting in the non-core subjects isn't resulting in able pupils getting lower grades for those subjects.)

Its not just about high achievers. My child was awful at written work and the hours of mixed ability English lessons for years of secondary did not improve matters. He kept up his confidence I suppose but I see him as barely literate: passed the exam ok what with coursework with corrections allowed. But he's confident.

There are two aspects to this discussion:

What is best for this particular child - she's in the top % who the research acknowledges do benefit from sets.

What is best for most children which I would accept is probably mixed ability (although I really think there needs to be some form of grouping).

You also have to consider the impact on the teacher - as a teacher it would take me twice as long to plan and resource a lesson with children working at vastly different levels. Would you rather have a well rested, enthusiastic teacher teaching sets or a burnt out (or even supply) teacher teaching mixed ability.

As a teacher, I prefer teaching sets in maths even when I have the lower group as I can go at their pace and build confidence. I teach in sets for English and maths but sit mixed ability within the class. This works for me.

Sorry that should say (I really do think there should be some form of grouping for maths)

So if classes need to be smaller for MA to work is that going to be funded? I'm thinking not.

My children are in/went through a comprehensive system with no formal setting and have done/are doing very well. It's not in the UK and has some significant differences but it's been interesting to watch them both and see their quite different reactions to being in a mixed ability setting (and how different teachers have approached the challenges).

There are two main differences to the UK comprehensive approach. The first is you can fail classes and have to retake them. However in practice this is very unusual, you have to pretty much skip all classes/ not give in any assignments to fail). The second is that while there is no setting there are different options for math and English, so you can choose more applied math over a more academic class. In theory the classes are supposed to be equally hard, but I suspect in practice Calculus is probably harder than Apprenticeship and Workplace Math.

What I have observed from watching my two is that you have to be a bit more self motivated to get the most from a mixed ability class, and you may spend more time helping others. I see both of these as major pluses.

If your objective is to ensure they don't fulfill their potential
Total bollocks. Whether children achieve their potential is a combination of teacher quality (& a strong teacher CAN stretch able kids in a mixed group), wider social situation of the child and THEIR attitude to learning.

There's no difference in my gcse outcomes (in terms of making expected or more than expected progress from ks2) when I've taught sets, mixed ability or somewhere in the middle.

I really enjoy teaching lower/mid sets if I'm honest, not because of the students but because of a cohort of parents in higher groups who seem to think their child is exceptionally bright but should never find work difficult because that would challenge their belief that they are clever. So you get critiques of your teaching from some who are new found experts saying 'i want you to stretch my child...' then another complaint 'last week he found the work difficult why aren't you stretching him?' Those people are the types on parents' eve who ask where their child is in relation to other students & clearly spend a lot of time being inwardly competative with other parents (Probably the people who starr threads on MN about how teachers hate bright children because we wish we were as gifted as their offspring).

As ever, vast majority of parents are awesome. But that type of situation almost only ever occurs when you have a high set.

I agree that no setting at all is following some anti-elitist mumbo jumbo and certainly does not help those at the top, who are either inwardly groaning at the lack of pace in the class, or made to act as unofficial teaching assistants, under the guise of "sharing knowledge

It's not anti elitist at all.
It's parents with this kind of attitude that makes me go off teaching top sets.

There is a time and a place for peer coaching. Research suggests tjat it is effective- HOWEVER is should not be the default method of differentiation.

So many issues people have on MA teaching are about poor teaching decisions, not MA classes.

Last time I taught full MA I had a y9 class. My top end were doing structured A level tasks linked to the set text. If anyone wanted to come in and complain that their darling wasn't making progress because 2 lessons a half term they were peer coaches I would humour them and have a laugh in the staff room.

What subject do you teach Maisy? (Just interested as you said MA has worked well.)

I teach English.
I don't notice a difference in pupil outcomes, but then i was a more able pupil myself so aim to avoud all the things I hated as a bright student like being a free TA

The biggest mixed ability range I taught was 5 (old) levels in one class! That was a challenging year but doable with careful planning and spending time thinking about how to structure learning. That was a rare group though. Usually mixed groups are 4-6/7 (old levels) / GCSE A*-C/D borderline.

For the current GCSE there's no tiers. I can see the merit in having small groups for those students who will struggle to access the paper (because it's now hideously non-inclusive) and would previously have been students who sat functional skills. Beyond that i don't find it makes much difference.

But my philosophy is to teach all classes the difficult stuff and vary the amount of help to get there. There's always the odd moaning parents but (this sounds awful) usually not indulging the silly nonsense and explaining how/why i do things is enough for them to settle. If all else fails I send the child home with their book and that's the last I hear from them.

We don't set for the majority of subjects at my comprehensive and it works extremely well. We lead the county in progress and attainment for English and Maths for state schools and have done for the last couple of years since Maths followed English in moving away from sets.

It has no negative impact on our high learners. In my experience it depends on the way it is taught. We teach to the top, have high expectations of everyone, and use strategies to help everyone achieve. If you teach to the middle it doesn't really work, even with some extension tasks.

I wonder if English is more suited to MA than Maths. My school didn't set in English but did consider it necessary for Maths and Noble thinks it necessary for Maths.

Hadn't seen Morbid's post when i posted that.