Any teachers here? Do mixed ability classes work?

[SpoonsAndForks]

I need to hurry up and decide whether my DS takes up his state school place for September or stays on at his private school.

His state school has mixed ability classes for all subjects apart from maths and English.

I'd like to know (especially from teachers) how this works with 32 children of very different ability. Is it really possible to differentiate and offer the right amount of challenge for each child?

How does it work in language classes where some children have already had 2 years lessons on the language and others are beginners?

Do the more academic kids suffer and end up not reaching their full potential or can they still fly academically?

You really must be a bit bored planet.

I am a teacher and yes they do. In fact I feel so strongly about this I'm currently doing an MA dissertation on the topic. Mixed ability groups enable children to learn from each other, try challenges and to not suffer from a label. I've been looking at this in maths and children who would have been put in the 'bottom' group are now trying challenges because they feel more confident in their learning.

piggy If your CV is full of phrases that give teachers a bad name because they are trying to mimic corporate speak, a lot of which is also ridiculous, it wouldn’t get more than one read.

You sound like you do not know what you are talking about, parroting phrases that you think make you sound knowledgeable. They don’t, they truly don’t.

Speak in plain English and you may be taken seriously, although your biased attitude sticks out a mile.

It's all very well talking about what would be best in an ideal world, but as has been said earlier in this thread, many schools are in crisis regarding teacher recruitment and having to rely on large numbers of less than ideal teachers. Increasingly schools have larger numbers of inesperuenced teachers and a bigger turnover of staff and with the morale crisis and funding problem, these issues look like getting worse.

I know we want to be idealists in education - and it's right that we should be, but we also have to be realists - so given that providing for al effectively in mixed ability classrooms requires more skill and. I lit than many teachers have got or are likely to have in the near future, what is the best way forward for the resources currently available? Lots of people here have said mixed ability is better with skilled, able teachers who are 'on it' that day and therefore don't have to waste much time on behaviour management, but what about in schools where there are a good number or lots of teachers who are new, inexperienced or simply not 'on it' enough to make this a reality....what then? Because sadly, this is the case in many schools.

Thanks to everyone who is posting. Piggywaspushed I really appreciate your input as you have experience of teaching both types of classes.

Fluffybat you mention the positive effects of the 'bottom' group, have you found positives for the 'top' group as well?

I'm 99% sure we're going to go with the state option now and not the private option (DH opposes private, not sure we can afford it long term once eldest goes to uni) - but I'm going to worry non stop about this as a lot of you are saying MA doesn't work very well for those of higher ability.

If private is out of the question there isn't much choice - the other local school (that I'd need to go on the waiting list for) has much lower progress 8 and attainment scores (for all learners) - plus it only sets in maths, english and science anyway, so only one additional subject.

I am speaking in plain English. I note you haven't picked up on cant who is also using the langauge of pedagogy. Not sure if I am allowed to use that word.

I use that language autmoatically when posting in a specilaised thread, which is what a secondary education thread is.

Actually, teaching doesn't have CVs, so there would be no need to be turned off by me. But I can assure you, teaching is stuffed full of people who speak way more jargon than I do. diet is hardly jargon, nor is it corporate, to my knowledge.

I don't think I am biased. After 25 years of teaching , I think I have genuine insights to offer. And OP hasn't said otherwise. I am wondering what your credentials are to offer insights, since OP asks in her first sentence for teacher input?

I don't agree with lots of teachers on ability setting. That's fine with me. Always up for a debate : just not sure why you have so taken against me. It is not bias if it is based on experience!

Thanks OP .

OP , you do still have sets for En/Maths and your school may also change its mind, I guess. It is quite standard only to set in En/ Ma (and often science) in lower secondary. I think it'll be fine

Whichever school you choose - they might change the system they use partly or wholly - so as a parent you can never be sure that what you think you're opting into, is what will still be there in 3 or ads or across the curriculum.

I have heard of local state schools introducing setting across most of the curriculum from September, following a disappointing Ofsted. I have also heard of schools aiming for more mixed ability teaching partly to deal with funding issues - by running missed ability, they have been able to reduce from 10 to 9 classes per year in those subjects which were previously setted, because they no longer have those smaller bottom sets, but somehow, the larger size of the higher sets doesn't seem to have disappeared!

I don't think your choice is particularly about state/independent. Lots of Independents don't go in for much setting - either because the schools are small or even in the very high performing ones, simply because the range is far less and it's not needed, expect in perhaps Maths. Most parents choosing those top Independnet schools wouldn't reject them because of the lack of setting - so that suggests it's not really the issue. Isn't the issue about receiving quality teaching and making excellent progress?

Quality teaching and excellent progress happens in lots of independent schools and it also happens in some classrooms in most state schools to varying degrees. The problem is simply that it's not widespread enough and not all classrooms are experiencing it. If you have a choice, you choose the place where you think your child will get the most experience of that quality teaching and excellent progress.....that's as a parent.

Schools which know they have a limited number of quality teachers who can deliver excellent progress have to decide how to deploy them - through mixed ability or setted teaching, but the bottom line is that if there aren't enough great teachers, not everyone will make excellent progress, no matter what system is used.

what about in schools where there are a good number or lots of teachers who are new, inexperienced or simply not 'on it' enough to make this a reality....what then?

I think this is an issue whatever the model used.

If such teachers are deployed to teach top sets (always supposing those top sets are also compliant, which is not necessarily the case) and the remaining 'experienced, on it teachers' used to teach the lower sets where children alienated from learning and thus disruptive are more common, do the top sets get the benefit from setting? Would I, for my very able compliant DD, settle for a weaker teacher in this scenario?

Or are such teachers deployed to teach lower sets because 'they don't matter so much'? That is a way to guarantee the pupils who need most help get the least, and is particularly unfair to lower middle ability children who are compliant and want to learn.

Or do the schools stick with mixed ability in most subjects, and make certain that the overall school systems support high standards of behaviour and learning, rather than replying just on the teacher in front of the classroom?

As I say, DC'school sets in Y10 and 11 for core subjects only, and the naturally greater engagement of pupils with subjects they have chosen (as well as really robust systems throughout the school) seems to ensure that the mixed ability groupings for these subjects work really well.

(Their progress results for EBacc subjects are higher than their overall average, and the progress even for the 'open' slot, is very good - these are all the subjects where mixed ability groupings are the norm)

Would I, for my very able compliant DD, settle for a weaker teacher in this scenario? The truth is you'd have no choice but to make the best of it.

There is a reason the very top prepreps stream from age 4! As I was told when looking around one, they aim for individual teaching in a social setting.

What could be better? It certainly beats giving everyone the same work and then helping the ones that are struggling, especially those who, with a bit of effort, could scrape a pass.

It gives better oversll results... that is they drag a few more passes out, but maybe at the expense of your child.

OP, The question you asked was, I think, is mixed ability the right model for a child like yours. I gave to admit to only skimming some if the replies, but I think the majority answers have been that MA benefits the bottom 80%\ 70%\ 50%\ 30%, often at the expense of the top 5%\ 10%/ 20%.

The implication of that (for me) is that it is the option to choose if you have a highly able child and want him to do the socially correct thing, even though it will disadvantage your child.

As DS1 went through secondary school, and was frequently complaining of boredom due to the slow pace and telling me how often he'd be told to spend the remainder of the lesson helping the person next to him, I'd ask about on MN and a significant number would always tell me that you haven't proved you understand something until you can teach it to someone else.
They'd also tell me how "able children will do well anywhere" - that's patently untrue unless their definition of "doing well" is different from mine (mine is reaching their potential) and doesn't include developing the mental illness of perfectionism.
They'd tell me that many children say they understand something but until they had proved mastery several times over, it was going to be assumed to be a false claim, which left me thinking but what if a particular child really has mastered these things long before the teacher assessed it as mastered (which tended to coincide with the end of the topic).

DS is expected to get all grade 8s and 9s next month. I know the school considers him someone to whom they've provided an excellent education, and sometimes that was true, but other times, it really wasn't. He wasted a lot of time.

I have no experience of the independent sector, and the grass is always greener but I can't help but think that the independent sector subdivides into differing levels of academic rigour and surely I could have found a school that was a better fit for DS if I'd had the foresight and the money.

There is a reason the very top prepreps stream from age 4! As I was told when looking around one, they aim for individual teaching in a social setting.

If they aim for individual teaching in a social setting, why on earth would they need to stream anyway? Sounds a bit like marketing-speak to me.

In any case, I think streaming - as opposed to setting - is the worst of all worlds. And streaming at 4....?!!

The mind boggles that people are willing to pay for this crap.

Schools which know they have a limited number of quality teachers who can deliver excellent progress have to decide how to deploy them - through mixed ability or setted teaching, but the bottom line is that if there aren't enough great teachers, not everyone will make excellent progress, no matter what system is used
This ^^
It's why our department is lucky to be fully staffed with strong staff.
Other departments I've worked in have had 3 subject specialists or have been 80% teachfirst (again not all specialists).

Setting is a problem because where do you allocate your strongest staff? To the top to stretch? To thr middle for value added? To the bottom to close the gap?

Mixed can be a problem if the mix is too big because it can be a pain to endlessly differentiate and keep the pace high. Fine if you're a strong teacher who can differentiate and stretch without death by task and worksheet, but harder for weaker staff.

I prefer loose sets, a half way house.

But aby system is limited by the quality od the teacher

And streaming at 4....?!!

Yep, worked very well for my very bright son who went on to be wanted by several fantastic preps (and all the perks that go with being sought after at 7!)

Yep, worked very well for my very bright son

And what about those who it didn't work very well for? Those who were labelled at 4 as being less capable?

FWIW, mixed ability worked very well for my very bright dd at that age too.

mmzz - a bit off topic for the thread, but I'd ask what 'reaching your potential' really means at age 16/18. I'm wondering this because I think of the all the people I knew at university. We had wildly different A levels - I had friends who went to places like Winchester, others from Glumtown comp, and a sprinkling who'd come in as mature students mostly via unions/Ruskin college.

On the whole I'd say the only ones (amongst those I knew personally, obviously only a small sample) who I think really didn't make the most of the opportunities open to them were private school pupils who were clearly bright but had taken an easy clear pathway through O & A levels straight through to Cambridge. (And conversely, the mature students were a level above everyone else in terms of commitment and what they got out of their time at college, I'd say.)

Personally, having been to ye typical slightly dodgy 80s comp, I had no qualms about sending dd to similar and expecting her to take responsibility for her own learning to a certain extent.

French2019 Selective school.

It’s up to parents to do the best for their own children.

Selective school.

But according to you, they were still streamed. Are you now saying that wasn't the case after all?

French2019

Don’t be ridiculous. Every selective school I know still streams their pupils! There are degrees of brightness you know! To be over a certain level to be able to get into such a school doesn’t mean you already know it all on entry lol!

Sadik Its hard to define, and the answer would be on a subject by subject basis, but for example, given that DS has now finished with English, I wish he could write an essay, or had ever written a short story. In maths, there are a lot of skills he has no knowledge of, some of them he'd have learned had he done additional maths (or whatever it's called) but the school doesn't do it.
Mainly though it feels like a lot of what he has learned has been like learning by PowerPoint i.e. missing out almost all the detail with GCSE approached as a series of sound bites.

As an example, DS2 (age 14) recently was in the car with me and he started to describe how the environmental and geographic conditions were ideal for a nation to thrive in Italy at the start of the Roman Empire. He went through it and I could see his understanding was really good. I thought he'd learned it at school and was impressed, thinking maybe things were changing. In terms of depth, it was certainly significantly better than DS1 had ever learned at the same school, even though he's done GCSE History. However, DS quickly corrected me - he'd learned it by reading an Andrew Marr book.

Lockhills,

Do you mean stream, or set?

Setting is where children who are e.g. great at Maths and less strong in English are placed flexibly in the appropriate group for that ability in that subject: so top Maths, middle English?

Streaming is where a child is placed according to their 'average ability across all subjects' - so the child in my first example is either in too high a stream to meet their true English needs, too low a stream to meet their Maths needs, or in some sort of halfway house limbo which meets neither need.

Streaming is not great educational practice, tbh.

Don’t be ridiculous. Every selective school I know still streams their pupils! There are degrees of brightness you know! To be over a certain level to be able to get into such a school doesn’t mean you already know it all on entry lol!

I'm well aware of that, but then don't understand your point when you say that it was a selective school. What was the relevance of that, exactly?