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?

I taught mixed ability English classes up to GCSE a few years ago. We had kids who could barely speak a word of English in with kids who were capable of A*s. I thought that was far too wide a range - it meant we couldn't teach challenging enough texts for the bright ones and we couldn't focus enough on basic language stuff for the EAL ones.

I went to a school that set all academic subjects separately - eg i was top set for English, set 4 (of 6) for science, set 2 for maths - and that worked quite well for most of us. You could move up and down between sets depending on your work and exam results, but there was a wide enough range within each set to challenge the brightest and pull up the less bright.

Theseare,

Apologies if I wasn't clear.

Double offering school: knows everyone will have done double, so starts teaching A-level at exactly the point that the double syllabus leaves off. A bit more content to cover, but planned in over 5.5 terms, all fine.

Triple offering school: knows everyone will have done triple, starts A level from end of triple curriculum. A bit less content to cover.

Candidate transferring between the two: gap in knowledge which the triple-offering school won't fill, because they start teaching from a different point. Fine if the pupil is self-motivated enough to study the extra content in the summer holiday and understand it, but less good than if they were at the double-offering school who start teaching A-level from exactly the point that they have reached.

(Possibly worth pointing out that even in the old GCSE, the 'extra' for triple wasn't by any means an 'equal third' - double was more than 2/3 of the syllabus, so the extra that needs to be covered when teaching A-level from the starting point of double is not actually that great. Even smaller with the new GCSE.)

Thank you for your response cant but I am afraid I am still not clear.

I think what you are saying is that schools start by assuming that kids who have done the double as opposed to the triple will be behind and therefore cater for it

So what you are saying in effect is that doing the double confers a disadvantage to kids doing the triple.

Sixth form is highly pressurised for G&T science/maths bods. They will be off doing maths olympiads and what have you. They don't need to make up ground because their school couldn't be arsed teaching the triple. Because there is so much more out there than the school can teach. They have to be reaching beyond the school in order to get to Oxbridge really and TBH being handicapped by doing the double (so they have to make up ground) cannot be helping them at all. It's a positive disadvantage.

Pretty sure, flawed as the research might be, it's top 2%, not 10 %...

Okay, say it's the top 2%. What if your kid happens to be in that top 2% (I realise that means the top 40% of parents might be complaining) but still, what if your kid does happen to be in the top 2%? As a parent are you going to stand back and watch him/her be disadvantaged?

Why should there be a disadvantage in terms of outcome where a child moves from a double-offering school to a school which teaches A-level from an assumption of triple? If there were no disadvantage in the double then this could not arise.
My high performing 6th form offers A level and teaches from double. We offer double and triple at GCSE.

The disadvantage of doing double then transfering to a college who assume triple is to do with how the 6th form OPTS to teach their A Level.

Many able students go on to do well in science having 'only' done double. We actually recommend only doing triple if you love all 3 sciences. If you adore biology and want biology A level but aren't fussed on Physics then we advise to do double and enjoy a range at GCSE.

Somehow our lowly state comprehensive gets outstanding results and still sends lots of students to prestigious universities to do sciences. It's terrible I tell you. We mustn't be able to cater for bright students at all.

Okay, you are miffed

There are approximately 7% of kids that are private school educated (including mine). Oxbridge is really struggling to ensure that 50% of the kids are from state schools. Do you see the disparity? Do you ever wonder why that is?

It might just be that state schools are lagging behind private schools in terms of supporting and enabling bright kids to achieve. Might be something to do with mixed ability classes. I can't say. But my bright kids are fine because I took control (ie paid). I would much prefer not to have paid. But I didn't trust the state system and the statistics bear me out. I think the state system needs to look very hard at the G&T kids and how they are provided for.

There are approximately 7% of kids that are private school educated (including mine). Oxbridge is really struggling to ensure that 50% of the kids are from state schools. Do you see the disparity? Do you ever wonder why that is?
Literacy gap starting from age 3
Reading culture at home
Not having illiterate parents
Early educational experience

Having parents with a good income who can fund a range of extra curriculars
Not being in a situation where home have to choose between heating or food
Not dealing with the trappings of poverty
Having nutritious meals so you can grow and thrive (I drove past a local comp at tje end of the day about 10 miles from my school. Their children were tiny compared to ours.)
Having parents who do your spellings and times tables
School funding
School buildings and facilities
Smaller class sizes
The expectation that staff offer intervention all the time because parents as customers
Parents who have the means to fund tutors
Social selection within private schools
Probably almost no PP children
Probably lower numbers of children with complex SEND needs
Massively narrow cohort where children only socialise with people who are like them and are in classes with other children who have had the same push for education as them
Parents who plant the seed that it's not just university that matters, but the right universities
Parents who discuss aspirations and careers vs 'i didn't need GCSEs and di just fine'
Parents who support the school instead of buying deliberately non uniform items and backing the child to kick off in school
A social network to get volunteering and work experience

We could go on.

Educational inequality is complex. A state comprehensive like mine gets similar outcomes as local independents but we do it without their selection. Even then, we may struggle if we had the social issues linked to another school's catchment.

OK, so the disdavantage to the top 2% is said to be minuscule... and is often counteracted - despite what you might think - by extra provision and enrichment for those students. If they really are super duper bright a normal top set will hold them back to some extent, let's face it. But I am more than sure they will find their way in life, unlike the bottom 2% who are said to be disadvantaged by ability setting. Have to be honest, i care more about them.

Ah but Piggy this is MN where someone always has a child who they say is a near genius and couldn't possibly manage in a normal.school because they are basically needing university material aged 11 and the teachers just can't possibly cater to anyone.

I have a degree in my subject but I'm in a state comprehensive so obviously I'm just ignoring years or higher study and give my bright kids colouring in and then use them as a TA to tell others how to colour in. It's probably because I'm terrified of bright children.

True

I understand everything you are saying

But I am an individual parent, making decisions for my children

All the stuff you are saying about inequality is true without a doubt

But I am an individual parent making decisions for my children

And I'm not convinced the state system is catering for them. In fact everything on this thread has gone towards supporting my views. No triple science for example.

There is a sector of children that the state system cannot cater for. It works at both ends - vide the children that have to be home educated because they can't cope with mixed ability classes.

But what infuriates me is that there is a sector of children - not in the top 2% - but maybe in the top 3-10% whose choices are lessened, reduced, because their parents don't have the wherewithal. That's not good. And the same happens at the bottom end. Maybe we have to say that state education caters best for kids in the 10-90 deciles. those above and below suffer.

Your comment about state schools vs independents and Oxbridge was essenty insinuating that privately educated students are somehow smarter or tjat the state system is crap for anyone who isn't average.

By all means make whatever choice you need to for your child, but let's not be silly and suggest that there's somehow a fundamentally better type of child in independents.

Who says that's why children are home educated? That's a bizarre and unfounded assertion!!

You are not addressing my fundamental point maisy

Why are there only around 50% state educated kids getting into Oxbridge if the state sector is doing such a fabulous job looking after its G&T kids

I realise this is a difficult question to answer. I don't think that better children go to independent schools at all - and nor have I suggested that. I've suggested that the state sector is letting bright kids down.

You are not addressing my fundamental pointmaisy
Why are there only around 50% state educated kids getting into Oxbridge if the state sector is doing such a fabulous job looking after its G&T kids
So the massive list outlining all the complex factors leading to educational inequality doesn't answer your question at all? Right ok.

Educational inequality is complex. It is a range of factors including lots of social factors.

It's hard to break generations of underachievment. It's hard to get bright children to achieve when you're battling a literacy gap formed in the child's early years. That's my point. Private schools are disproportionately filled with children and parents who are socially advantaged with all the benefits that bestows.

If you want to kid yourself that the reason more state schools aren't in oxbridge is because state schools are crap with able children then there is absolutely no hope of a sensible discussion with you.

The children who go private have on average:

• richer parents
• more educated parents
• more involved / pro-education parents
• less SEN / behaviour problems

In grammar areas the bright kids from poor / chaotic homes might not even make it to grammar because they can't pay to tutor / don't realise until too late what the system is.

There is also I suspect some 'self-selection' going on. Private school kids assume it is their right to get into a good university, including Oxbridge. Someone from an inner-city comp may well think 'it's not for the likes of me'.

Additionally, if a state school gets £5k or similar per pupil per year, how can they be expected to achieve the same as one that gets £20k per pupil per year?

We've gone off the topic of mixed ability though.

So there you have it OP. Mixed ability classes are fine for the vast majority of kids. Those who are at the ends of the spectrum can and are catered for (despite the statistics saying they really aren’t).

It’s up to you now- what do you plan to do?

Having taught in both private and state secondaries, I have seen the difference. It's not about innate intelligence or even about teaching. It's about background, social and cultural capital, patental input and a sense of entitlement. By the time a child arrives at secondary, much of that is very very hard to change. If anything, the teachers at the (excellent and very high-achieving) private school I worked at were less hard-working, less committed and did much less to improve the kids' achievement than the teachers in any of the state schools I worked in. Why? Because they simply didn't need to. The kids were motuvated and eager to learn. They drove their achievement themselves.

Mixed ability all the way here.

The less able pupils need their confidence boosted and the more able pupils need their egos taken down a peg.

So many interesting points and contributions, thank you.

I'm still undecided (I'm going to have to set myself a deadline).

There are more factors to my decision making process which are complicating my decision. My DH opposes private schools and so does not want to send him private. The private prep only goes to end of year 8 so we'd need to find another school and that might mean some travel. Plus (most importantly) I need to go through our finances to ensure we really can afford it, I think we can, just, but that is a dilemma in itself as it will mean sacrifices in other areas.

I suspect I would need a fortune telling crystal ball to truly know whether DS would achieve the same grades and be happy and thrive at either school, one with sets and one without. It is a shame we can't replay our lives and try out different paths!

Returning briefly to the Oxbridge point:

What would be really interesting is analysis would be 'matched pairs' - ie pupils from the same type of family background in terms of income, jobs, and parental education, and from the same part of the country, so that as far as possible the only 'uncontrolled' factor affecting success was school sector - private or state.

There are of course factors other than sector that differentiate between different schools - money, educational backgrounds of teachers, tradition (and therefore 'knowledge of the process') - but at least a proper matched pair analysis would be better than the crude '50% of students at Oxbridge come from private schools so state schools must be failing' headlines.

Oxbridge is, of course, also failing - to attract state school pupils to apply, to see beyond careful expert preparation to true ability, to simplify their processes to make them as transparent and easy to navigate for schools / students unfamiliar with collegiate universities as possible. Interviewing is, unfortunately, a real barrier, though I can understand why it is done - a human is only too likely to select a student 'like the students we already have / like the student I was' rather than completely objectively.

Holy that’s just bloody offensive
The most able pupils don’t their “egos taken down a peg”. ( which isn’t even a phrase). They need to be encouraged to achieve their potential, as do ALL pupils and for the most able it seems that mixed ability classes aren’t ten place to do that
Frankly Embittered shite like that is why my dd goes to a school where its ok to be clever and achieve and nobody gets called a “swot”for working hard rather than the school which has mixed ability classes

that is why my dd goes to a school where its ok to be clever and achieve and nobody gets called a “swot”for working hard rather than the school which has mixed ability classes

You do know those two aren't mutually exclusive, don't you?

My DCs go to a school where is is not just OK, but very highly valued, and 'cool', to be clever and achieve. Nobody gets called a 'swot'. AND they have mixed ability classes (for all subjects other than Maths in Y7, for a decreasing number of subjects for Y8 and Y9, and for all 'choice' subjects for GCSE - ie everything other than Maths. English and science)

You can have a school culture where it is seen as 'normal' to be clever, to work hard, to achieve to the absolute best of your ability (whatever that ability might be) whatever your approach to setting / mixed classes.

In fact, it may be easier to foster an attitude that it is cool to try hard and make the best of your ability in mixed classes, rather than in a strictly setted school, because a setted or streamed environment does send a signal to some that they are 'forever consigned to a lower middle set', and that rigid 'we have these expectations of you' may in fact be a barrier to expecting everyone to strive for the very best.