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 DCs school used to do it for Y7.

TBH it was no different from primary school.

DS was in the top 10% and it didn't hold him back.

Having said that they now set, but TBH I'd rather they didn't.

Each to their own noble but it's growing in popularity and is very effective for personalizing learning and giving ownership to the children.

My DCs school set from year 7 for maths and science. English in year 8 and everything thing else from year 10. Each and every time that a new subject started to set, their experience improved.
Ds1 is in the to 1% for maths, and top 15%for everything. Even with setting, his experience in maths is that it has been painfully slow and even though he obviously has a talent for it, he finds the lessons extremely boring, even the extension work is not challenging at all.
God knows what it would have been like if he'd been in a class with a child who still can't remember how to apply Pythagoras's theorem. When the teacher address the whole class, who should they be pitching the lesson at? Not my son obviously but whose child as they are all different.

Mmzz The teachers differentiate within the class so teach in a slightly different way to the more able than to the less able in order for them all to grasp the basic concepts. I think (although not sure as my child has only just started school so I haven't experienced it myself yet) that the more able do help the less able, which is good as nothing cements knowledge in your mind quite as much as trying to teach it to someone else. This is how its done throughout comprehensive school (which ends at 15/16) its not until after that that they separate out into different tracks - academic, vocational, or mixed.
Class sizes are much smaller though (20 is average I think, in DD's school usually around 15) - I think class sizes in the UK are a disgrace and not conducive to the best learning. There is a very wide use of special ed so ones that are really struggling to grasp the concepts in time can get extra help from the special ed teacher until they catch up.

This whole thing of the more able helping the less able. What% of their school career should they be doing it? Actually leaning over and explaining to someone else how to do something? Because both my DC do several hours of it every single week and have been for nearly a decade. It's the equivalent of a part-time TA (unpaid). Ds2 is especially good at it, such that he is often seated next to a struggling child.
It sounds great, but apart from becoming rather good at getting inside someone else's head and figuring out what bit they aren't understanding, I'm not sure that I wouldn't have preferred that they be allowed to get on with their own, appropriately set work.
To me the whole policy stinks of a high handed, rather smug decision to sacrifice the potential of the most able for the greater good. And then to cap it all, to tell the more able children that they should be proud to serve.

But its not sacrificing their potential, its helping them reach it by cementing their knowledge in their minds even better. I agree it shouldn't be done too much but it has its place and its very helpful to all. I did it a lot when I was in school and found it very helpful to aid my own understanding as well as actually enjoying 'teaching' it to my classmates. It must be done as part of a balance, some time doing their own individually set work, some time spent helping others, some time learning as a whole class. Several hours a week is too much though.

This whole thing of the more able helping the less able. What% of their school career should they be doing it? Actually leaning over and explaining to someone else how to do something?
Peer tutoring/coaching is a useful strategy.
I use it at least once a fortnight but it requires a very well planned seating plan so the pairs are appropriate (e.g. not very top with very bottom).
They shouldn't be spending hours on it a week as that is poor differentiation.

That said, being able to do something is easier than being able to explain it to someone else. That is why not all people with doctorates in their subject make good teachers. I've had more able students plan literacy starters and teach the class before for 10 mins.

I don't get on board with the idea that MA is sacrificing the more able students. I really don't.
If a teacher isn't differentiating to meet thr needs of their students then that is a TEACHING issue, not a grouping issue.

And after their knowledge is cemented so that they literally can do the problem from any angle using any form of words, but another child in the room is still struggling, what then?
I know the answers to my own question: repitition and the teacher will pretend that is just a problem for this one topic, she'll forget that it happened last week too and she'll not give a thought to how it will happen next week as well

I taught in a mixed ability school and in my school it caused huge problems. You get some pupils of low ability but with strong social skills and this can make it hard to establish a serious work ethic. If a less able pupil finds the work difficult, their sense ofself can feel threatened and they can msbehave. Mixed ability can work for the first year and workd better in some subject area than others. I think flexible setting is better.

Incidentally, my school had a very socialist slant on life

I know the answers to my own question: repititionand the teacher will pretend that is just a problem for this one topic, she'll forget that it happened last week too and she'll not give a thought to how it will happen next week as well
Umm what?
It's ONE strategy in a classroom. ONE of many. Other support goes in for those children through marking, intervention etc.
They may well use that stratgy on another topic because it is GOOD to have children explaining things. It doesn't mean the child explaining is fulfilling the role of a TA (for people to suggest that shows limjted understanding of a TA role)

In a nutshell you don't want to see bright children helping any weaker children, it would be much better if you child only had to work in a group with other children who are similarly able.

I'm not convinced it's right to just lump "high ability" vs "mid ability" vs "low ability" and associate each with a type of behaviour and work ethic. My DCs have found some of the most disruptive to be perfectly capable of A*s, and some of the hardest workers to be pupils who worked their absolute socks off only to scrape the necessary grades.

I think it affects different groups differently. My DD1 and DS1 were barely placed in sets (and when they were for maths in year 10/11 they were still mixed ability to an extent) yet neither suffered, because they were motivated and hardworking as well as being naturally bright. I think the group it would hinder would be those who were very intelligent but less adaptable, and happy to coast as long as they were still at the top of their class. It would probably do most of these children best to be in sets - but I can't see another group where it benefits the majority. It just doesn't seem fair to immediately label a group of children as "set 1" and another as "set 12", because it does create a hierarchy, and it does create a mentality among those in sets 10/11/12 that they will never be able to achieve above their set level.

I also think the fact of the matter remains - if a very intelligent child doesn't reach their full potential, they still come out of education with a lot more to show for it and a lot more chances than a less academic child who's done their absolute best. That's why they have to be the priority in schools where all abilities exist. And I say that as a parent of high achieving children - DD1 got full marks across all her year 6 SATs, DD2 came close, and DS still got level 6s where available and level 5s (I don't know what this means for the percentages everyone else refers to!).

The ideal is a system that works for everyone - setting is definitely not that, and mixed ability isn't either but it's a good sight closer from what I can tell.

I think it is dangerous to assume kids can just be grouped in nice evenly split groups where they are all at the same level.

Every class will have a mix of abilities. DS came up this way and DD is still doing it. Both have done very, very well. Because the school has no choice about MA classes, teachers have become skilled at dealing with it.

A friend of mine is a teacher and his annual increment is dependent on kids passing exams. Not sure if that's standard. But if it is isnt there the risk that teachers concentrate on the lower ability kids and leave the higher achievers to their own devices more? Dd felt that at school, not sure if her teachers were worried about pay rises or just stats/figures.

@Sopassremarkable I think that policy encourages teachers to work towards optimising the exam performance of the children who are likely to perform close to whichever grade boundaries the person setting the pay policy has chosen. I'm not sure it helps the children who'll definitely pass or fail.

I think that policy encourages teachers to work towards optimising the exam performance of the children who are likely to perform close to whichever grade boundaries the person setting the pay policy has chosen. I'm not sure it helps the children who'll definitely pass or fail
That's not how it works.
Progress is assessed for EVERY child based on their starting point. That's what Progress 8 is.

Every class will have a mix of abilities
This. Even in a top set there will be a range of aptitudes.
In my very able group this year I have some great creative writers, some weaker creative writers who struggle with ideas. I have some who are great at Shakespeare and others who struggle.

I quite like using peer to peer support but this thread has informed me that it's the worst thing on earth to have kids helping each other. Or am I ok to have children working together because they are all predicted 7-9?

Maisypops - no, I doubt the level 7s are helping the year 9s, so all you are talking about is what level the 9s are teaching at.
What does work though is putting the most able together and letting them banter about their mistakes/ compete with each other. It gives an incentive to work mistake free that doesn't come naturally with setting overly easy work.

Every class will have a mix of abilities
I agree with this too. In fact is go as far as to say that the top and bottom sets are the ones that are going to have the widest ability ranges (due to the normal distribution of intelligence)

My dss' school used only to set for maths. Now they set for maths from year 7 (hierarchical sets), have a top set for English and languages but the rest mixed ability (except for a small support set who access a different curriculum), have a top set for science in years 7 and 8, then increasingly structured science setting in years 9-11, and mixed ability for all other subjects. Changing to have a top set in some subjects instead of fully mixed ability in all lessons improved GCSE results and progress 8 for all ability levels, not just at the top end of the ability spectrum, although the increase in the number of highest grades was certainly noticeable. How much that is due to the change in setting policy and how much to do with senior leadership maybe supporting staff better and expecting higher standards, I wouldn't know. It is a large comprehensive secondary school. As the parent of children within the top 1% of the ability range, I am personally happy with this setting arrangement! Children are also not fixed in stone in the top set: there has been movement in and out of the top set in years 7, 8 and the start of year 9, although I should imagine it may become less fluid after that, as GCSEs approach. It certainly seems better than sending kids off to an entirely different school at 11, where flexibility is then lost to move children up and down sets between the grammar schools and non-grammars. Behaviour at the school is good and parental support for the school, children's attitudes and teachers' morale all seemed to be boosted by the change. Again, I have no idea if this is because the leadership is good and staff on board, so people trust the changes to work and don't fight or argue against it, or because the changes were necessary to improve results!

Imo, the fact staff at the school the OP looked at happily talk about the top 10% of children not benefiting at all from the change to mixed ability would seriously put me off. I don't want teachers being complacent about the group of children my own children happen to be a part of! (And fwiw, there is a huge range of ability within the top 10%, so the top 10% are still very much mixed ability!!!).

Maisypops - no, I doubt the level 7s are helping the year 9s, so all you are talking about is what level the 9s are teaching at.
And that proves you didn't bother to read my post at all.
They are PREDICTED 7-9. But someone predicted a 9 can be a weaker creative writer than someone predicted a 7.
In fact, shock horror. Students predicted 7-9 will often be working at 6s at the start of the course because a few months in theu don't have all thr knowledge and exam technique to get their target. (And then we have parebts call up demanding to know why their child isn't at their end of y11 target 7 weeks into y10 because 'they are very bright and you aren't stretching them')

What does work though is putting the most able together and letting them banter about their mistakes/ compete with each other. It gives an incentive to work mistake free that doesn't come naturally with setting overly easy work.
Who mentioned setting easy work?
There is a time and a place for that approach but that's not a teaching strategy for stretching more able students. They need high level input, good questioning, more advanved thinking prompts, heavily scaffolded routes through more advanced material. Students can't discover what they don't know.

Clearly you want a situation where only the very very brightest only ever work with the very very brightest because they might pick up the stupid from any child who isn't as awesome as they are. Any interaction with someone who doesn't meet mum abd dad's criteria of a suitable partner is obviously going to damage their child's education.

To be honest, the kind of attitude you display towards kids who don't have the 'correct' target is ridiculous.

Peer coaching is interesting, because it can as easily occur in a supposedly 'equal ability' set as in a mixed ability set.

DD is in the top set (30 out of a year group of around 240) in Maths, and is probably within the top 5 of that set (though as she prefers to show her work in writing, her teacher persists in thinking that she is not able because she's not practically standing on her seat waving her hand shouting 'Me! Me! Me! I know the answer').

He has commented, though, that she is very good in paired work. She describers her daily experience thus: 'The teacher teaches us something. i understand it. When we are asked to do paired work, i explain it to my partner, who usually doesn't 'get it' from the teaching. Then she understands it. Then we do the independent work.'

Apparently it works very well, especially as her partner is only too happy to put her hand up to say that DD has the right answer and would like to share it with the class, something that DD wouldn't do for herself....

We have a local school that used to be private so quite small classes. Mixed ability apparently worked well, as you might expect. It became an academy and has increased the intake over the past couple of years. The classs are now larger and as far as I know mixed ability still (or they were when it came to apply for my DSs). I was not confident that they could keep the same standards with a much higher number of pupils in a mixed ability class. I know that they were advertising for various SEN Staff soon after increasing their numbers, so maybe it because apparent to them that larger classes meant that teachers were less able to focus on pupils’ with additional needs than they had been previously.

I am a cynic, having worked in a secondary school for the past 8 years. There are a lot of changes put in place because of lack of funding, or because it makes things easier for the running of the school but not necessarily better if you see what I mean.

As an example my school used to have an hour and 5 min lunch break. Everyone was on lunch at the same time which meant plenty of Staff available to do lunch duties ie monitor behaviour on yards and Corridors. Better sense of staff morale as colleagues would eat together in the Staff room. Time available for pupils to print out homework, attend a club etc.

They then switched to a system of 2 different 40 min breaks. It’s chaotic and frenzied and doesn’t lead to a calm atmosphere for pupils going into afternoon classes. There is not enough time to sort out pastoral issues properly and often heads of year end up on a different lunch break to children who are need an issue sorting. Not enough time to run any lunchtime clubs. No staff in the Staff rooms which has led to a decline in the sense of cameraderie. Staff lunch duty rota is a nightmare with Staff forever having to ask for a swap with someone on the opposite lunch break. Minimal visible staff around to prevent behavioural issues building up. I’ve had to break up physical fights with no other adult visible or within shouting distance. It doesn’t feel safe to me now.

Yet, both Staff and pupils have voted to keep the system because it means that school finishes earlier. Staff who have kids in local schools can rush off at 3.10 in time to pick them up, unlike before. But it means that that they are often not available after school if you want to set up a meeting with them, and they’re not available to see a pupil who may be struggling with something. It is also said that there are FEWER behavioural issues because of the shorter lunches with fewer pupils on each. My opinion is that no, there are actually MORE, they are just not being seen in the first place by a lot of staff, or dealt with properly due to lack of time so it must FEEL to staff that they are dealing with fewer pastoral issues.

The real reason lunch was switched to a 2 lunch break system was because they built on 2 of the yards and there is now nowhere for pupils to physically go at lunchtime. Complete lack of forethought during the planning process. But because pupils like to get off Home earlier (who’d Have thought it?!) then I am told that “people like this system and have voted to keep it”

Whether it is BETTER for all is a whole other matter.

This is what I suspect is the case with schools choosing to switch to mixed ability classes. They will tell you one or two advantages (while ignoring the major disadvantages), but I suspect the real reason is due to funding as a couple of others have mentioned. Fewer classes will be needed, so fewer teachers. They are getting rid of TAs left right and centre. I suspect that schools are hoping that mixed ability classes will improve the behaviour of disaffected kids too. In my experience that won’t happen in a lot of schools. In my school there are disaffected pupils in sets 2 and 3, not just bottom sets. Brighter pupils in sets 2, for example, often complain that progres of the class is impeded by a couple of kids being naughty then a few others give up and join in.

The other reason they may be doing it is because of the progrsss 8 thing. In my school, low ability pupils are not making required progress. It would surprise me if they decided to change to a mixed ability system to try to raise the aspirations of disaffected kids using the high-achieving hard-working kids as examoles. What should be happening is that bottom set disaffected kids should be given outstanding teachers to inspire them.

Mixed ability classes will not work unless you have extremely good behaviour already across the school and fantastic teachers. I suspect in schools where it seems to be working, behaviour was already good.

cantkeepawayforever
Absolutely.

It can also give confidenve to students who may be wary of sharing ideas because they've already had feedback from a peer.

What this thread is showing me is that people who understand teaching methods and grouping will say there are pros/cons to a range of methods and grouping and that teh success of a strategy or group system is based on teaching decisions rather than an inehrent flaw with the method.

People who have limited understanding/experience of grouping systems amd teaching methods will make broad sweeping statements about how the entire system is deisgned to sacrifice bright kids and that any overlap between bright kids and less academic kids holds smart kids back / any overlap in method only proves how schools don't want to challenge their more able.

WOULDN’T surprise me if...

it does create a mentality among those in sets 10/11/12 that they will never be able to achieve above their set level.

Given the obsession in England with target grades, putting a weak child in a mixed ability class isn’t going to hide from them that less is expected of them than the rest of the class.

One thing fans of mixed ability don’t seem to have addressed is that there is selection in Y9. Students choose which GCSEs to take and usually, if a student is very weak in a subject, they don’t take it. This narrows the range of ability of students in GCSE classes. Science splits off the brightest into triple science classes. Maths and English are the only GCSE subjects taken by the full cohort. In English it is easier to differentiate by outcome (did any English teacher talk about text selection in MA groups?) and English teachers are saying it’s not a problem. So we’re left with maths, teaching the full cohort, the full range of ability, two tiers of exams with the more able students needing to be taught a whole range of topics that the other half of the year group don’t need to know. In my School the weakest do entry level qualifications and the most able do further maths GCSE so we also have groups being prepared for different qualifications as well as different tiers of entry.
I would love to hear from any maths teacher that teaches MA all the way to GCSE how this is managed without largely leaving pupils to teach themselves (remember the old SMP cards? That’s how maths used to be ‘taught’ MA).