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!

Ah mixed ability maths.. covering for an absent maths teacher colleague where a 2nd year ( back in the day) struggled with Smile mathsbnary code whilst being unable to add up in tens and units. mixed ability teaching can be a disservice to weaker pupils too.

binary code

I have a low ability child. I prefer the setted teaching that I have seen to the mixed ability teaching I have seen.

In sets, my DD2 seems to be happier, more confident, and to make more progress.

I also know that in my DDs school they regularly review sets and move pupils as they see fit. DD1 moved from set 7/10 to set 3/10 in maths during her time at secondary.

I disagree with the uses that it doesn't matter if a bright child doesn't achieve their potential because they will still do better than the lowest ability.
Actually what often happens is the child is so bored tgatbrhey stop trying. They start playing up too. How often have you seen in here stories of very able teens that had gone off the track and failed their GCSE or Alevels because if that???

Is it also worth the stress and the anxiety of those teens?

IMO saying that it doesn't matter if xxx doesnt do well is rubbish. Everyone deserves to be treated well and respected fir what they can do. No k e should be put in a cupboard and forgotten about. Higher or lower ability people. That's the same.

I can't cite my source but I have a Masters in Education and it is pretty impeccable.

I've got a Masters in Maths and a background in clinical research and if you can't cite the research then you might as well not have any. Research should surely be public and available for review?

merely suggesting the importance of research rather than anecdote

But we should also not become slaves to the latest research, be aware that one study is not impressive evidence, that what works in one classroom in one subject with one teacher and one group of children won't work in every classroom with any teacher teaching any subject to all children, and that we should keep common sense in mind when selecting teaching strategies.

Look how having research behind it has turned out for Growth Mindset. Schools jumped all over it, massively adopted, the research hasn't been replicated and now everyone's a bit embarrassed by the whole thing.

But noble, is there good research that supports setting?

I can see that, without good research on either side, it is easiest to state that we should stick with the status quo that seems to work for most people most of the time. However, we could end up with a scenario as there has been for infant reading - that teachers stick with a method that works for 80-90% (whole word recognition) because it doesn't seem to 'fail' all that many on an everyday basis, while in fact phonics would fail far fewer but isn't take up because 'what I do works fine'.

Just for clarity: is there high quality England-based peer-reviewed research evidence that setting DOES work

I guess you'd need to be careful in defining your terms before you could even start there. It seems from this thread that people use mixed ability to cover anything from random selections of kids in all classes to loose ability groups and/or the bottom end selected off for special intervention.
The EEF toolkit, where they look at and summarise the evidence for the benefit of English school leaders doesn't break the evidence down by subject or setting, they merely give a broad overview. The nuance may well be missed by school leaders who don't have any training or experience in carefully interpreting evidence and merely look at the '-1 low cost' figure.
educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/resources/teaching-learning-toolkit/setting-or-streaming/

But even the EEF say "Though the average impact of setting or streaming on low attaining pupils is negative, evidence suggests that certain types of grouping are more effective than others. Some studies have shown that reducing the size of the lowest attaining groups and assigning high-performing teachers to these groups can be effective, as can providing additional targeted catch up support."

I would think that most schools that set for maths front-load their top sets to make their bottom sets smaller, which here is suggested to be effective. Unfortunately in maths there are not many high-performing teachers left, and so whether bottom sets are assigned great teachers is more of an issue. (My school has lots of great maths teachers and we all teach the full spread of groups).

Dylan Wiliam has cautioned against using research evidence to override common sense, and I am certainly dubious that MA classes could provide the same sort of targeted teaching that we provide to different sets. I know that 'this is how we've always done it' isn't a good argument on its own, but if 'this is how we've always done it' solves problems that the other option throws up, then caution should be applied.

On top of this, I was looking at some research that was being posted on twitter the other day about cognitive load theory and about how experts in a subject need to be taught differently to beginners in a subject - experts need unstructured problem-solving, beginners need modelled solutions. I've not got my head around it but it certainly chimes with how I teach top sets versus how I teach bottom sets.

As I understand it, isn't much UK evidence on this but a study is underway - see this link:
www.tes.com/news/school-news/breaking-news/setting-ability-be-focus-major-academic-study

I'm watching this thread with interest as my son has just started at a secondary school that teaches in MA groups.

Reading this thread and the other regarding behaviour of pupils, is it any wonder many parents seek out selectively social and academic schools.

Thanks for that link, Wobbly, results out in Spring 2018 so one to watch for next year.

However, it does say that the study only involves Y7 and Y8 pupils which means that the GCSE issue will remain unaddressed.

Here's a brief explanation of what I just referred to in cognitive load theory - giving instruction suitable for beginners to experts can cause what is being called the 'expertise reversal effect':

theelearningcoach.com/learning/novice-versus-expert-design-strategies/

"Why does the reversal effect happen? Several studies demonstrated that for advanced learners, processing the type of redundant information presented to a novice, could induce unnecessary cognitive load and distract the expert from the new material to be learned.

This is most likely because advanced learners have knowledge structures organized for efficiency and effectiveness in the real world. When they encounter too much instructional guidance, they have to stop to integrate and cross-reference this redundant material with their available knowledge structures, which uses up valuable cognitive resources."

Can I just say that it's nice the thread has turned into a sensible discussion about groupings rather than the 'poor bright kids are being sacrificed as burnt offerings' stuff earlier on.

The posts have been really informative.

I live in a country which does not track students till age 15but the difference is that the entire curriculum is taught whole-class from textbooks (no differentiation) right from the startthere are no "ability tables" at primary schools. Parents also tutor and push kids more. So the "spread" of attainment levels is smaller at secondary level.

I like the idea no-setting for 11-14yo in principle, but I seriously doubt whether it is feasible in the UK, given how our primary schooling works.

@noblegiraffe. I can't cite the person who discussed the evidence with me because it will mean (another) name change. The person who discussed it with me also, ruefully, discussed the fact that "learning styles" has now been disproved, along with quite a lot of other dearly held beliefs. I am well aware of how research works.

And I didn't say I couldn't cite where it came from because I am challenging you, far from it. I am supporting you in suggesting we need evidence before we make changes in education. And I made it very clear that the graphic came from a quick Google, not from the person I spoke to.

The top three subjects for A/8/9 grades in my school last year were all taught mixed ability or loosely banded. The subjects that set did less well at the top end. Not sure that really means anything but the kids that I taught in mixed ability history were pushed. A third of my mixed ability class got As. There were a couple others in the group for whom the D they achieved was a good result.

I will say that despite obviously being very pro-setting in maths, there is a social justice argument that troubles me, particularly given the grammar school debates that were raging until very recently.

Just as there are few PP students in grammar schools, it is probably also likely to be few PP students in top sets. However the advantage of comps over grammar schools is the ability to move students between sets without having to change schools. Schools should certainly be very aware of their PP students and efforts should be made, where PP students are struggling, to give extra support to keep them in higher sets rather than moving them down as quickly as they might do with non-PP students. Similarly, PP students should be boosted to higher sets where they are potentially between two groups.

I don't think the social justice argument is sufficient to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The top three subjects for A*/8/9 grades in my school last year were all taught mixed ability or loosely banded

You can't use GCSE results as evidence when the whole cohort does not take those GCSEs. My school got fab results for GCSE Art, the A*/A percentage was higher than that for maths. What does that tell us? That talented artists opt for Art GCSE.

@noblegiraffe.

When I said "cite my source" I meant the person who I was talking to, for clarity.(On a phone so can't scroll back easily). The only thing I am arguing is that there is some research in Scottish education which runs counter to the idea that some of the things on that graph are just USA based.

And I have been teaching a long time - long enough to see fads come and go. Hence my point. We need evidence, not anecdote. Anyone telling me that Jimmy did better in x school because they set / don't set / wear green hats, is going to get the same response.

And, as with all research, it is only worth considering, not blindly adopting. And much of it can be refuted using other research. It is also very hard to compare like with like in Education. Maybe it is the green hats / blue blazers / extra library books - maybe they had a good teacher.

Additionally, we are so often working in systems and structures over which we have limited control. We, therefore, need to be aware of the "research" being used to force change (Brain Gym, anyone) and also of what works for us.

I met someone (again, fairly high level in Scotland) who was discussing the co-operative learning models we have been pushed hard to adopt. Great, if kids are compliant. She teaches in rows, with hands up as anything else in her sink school is going to bring about serious issues with behaviour. Works for her and who am I to argue.

I can't cite the person who discussed the evidence with me

I don't want anyone's name, I would like to see the evidence. People can be very highly regarded and still be wrong! I keep mentioning Jo Boaler, she's a professor of mathematics, and as far as I'm concerned having looked at her work, she's bonkers.

Can't do that. Sorry. I am not and never was offering the evidence. I don't have the evidence because, in a private conversation I was told that Durham are doing some research into current issues with Scottish education with a view to showing that the "projects" being pushed by the Scottish government are not evidence based. I am not offering evidence of research , I can't. It hasn't been published and is still on-going.

I've just read this full thread and am finding the discussion very interesting.

I agree with a lot of posters saying that changing things from the status quo on the basis of one piece of research. And as a Maths teacher I also agree with noble that maths needs to be treated separately to other subjects because improving in maths means answering a completely different question, rather than answering the same question more fully.

When I first started teaching I taught in a school that just had 2 "sets", They had 4 " higher" sets and 4 "intermediate" sets, nobody sat the foundation tier as it was at the time. It was awful, even restricting the ability range that way. None of the kids got the best teaching from ANY of the teachers (not just me as an nqt), because the weaker kids in each class were rushed on to the next topic before they were secure on the last one, and the brighter ones has to do more practice on each topic than they needed.

Suffice to say the political agenda runs counter to much of what teachers are seeing in the classroom. The "skills based curriculum" has brought about plummeting results. Literacy is going down. Numeracy is in the toilet. Equity is becoming a real problem. Our "gap" is widening. The SNP are tinkering under the bonnet, research is being done to suggest that the car needs to be scrapped.

ms
Your experience matches what somr of my colleagues say about maths and MFL.
They seem to lend themselves really well to setting.

Noble,

I think that is particularly importasnt around transition from primary to secondary. One of the reasons even the DC's comp doesn't set for maths in Y7 until midway through the Autumn term (ansd there is LOTS of movemetn during Y7 so the initial setting is very loose) is because the primaries that it draws from are very different.

On paper, results from naice school A, very few SEN or PP and lots of pushy parents, would imply that its students should overwhelmingly be in the top sets. On the other hand, pupils from school serving estate B have a much more significant number of PP pupils,. and a much greater occurrence of the social and behavioural difficulties that may result ... and it struggles to attract and retain good primary teachers as a result. Thuis on paper, its pupils should mainly be in lower sets.

In actual fact, the genuine Maths ability is much more evenly spread, and by doing and testing Maths within mixed ability groups individually, and being EXTREMELY flexible and aware of 'latent potential' throughout KS3, the final setting arrived at is much more accurate (and very different from 'ranking by KS2 results or results from testing done in the first week'')