School Sets
Do you think schools should have ability sets for children? I think that there certainly should be ability sets as they'll allow the slower children a chance to learn at a pace that benefits them, but I don't think the sets should be numbered. When I was at Juniors school I was in bottom sets and I remember that one of my mates was in middle set for English and I wanted to be there too. I get the feeling that children in bottom sets will feel like they are less worthy, though I imagine most won't really care.
Scroll to see replies
I think that sets should be numbered because it’s more convenient and organised this way. If you want to move up sets or if you think you are ‘worthy’ enough then prove it. It’s a great way for students to psychologically try harder on tests.
This is my stance on the issue. I went to a recommended local public high school here that used both weekly pupil assessment scores and end of term pupil performance reports as a way of deciding who needs to be in which set. I was placed in a medium-low mixed ability set for maths(the higher ability groups would have been too difficult) that purely consisted of less able pupils who were only doing modules 1-3 either with specific exam concessions or in the normal way. For English it was the other way around. In terms of my other subjects and classes it depended. In the high school I attended it was originally implemented as a effective means to try to solve a serious school wide problem regarding pupil ability.
It worked really well as the class and home work tasks were set according to the needs of the entire ability set in question. It can theoretically work. But it can also fail. Different sets did different textbook exercises which were deemed appropriate for them. Teachers took individual ability into consideration as far as possible when deciding.
It worked really well as the class and home work tasks were set according to the needs of the entire ability set in question. It can theoretically work. But it can also fail. Different sets did different textbook exercises which were deemed appropriate for them. Teachers took individual ability into consideration as far as possible when deciding.
Its definitely needed in schools, the class can only learn as fast as its slowest member so youre either going to end up negatively impacting the smart students by holding them back for the err less gifted or completely losing the less able by progressing too fast with stuff they simply cant learn/understand. Its slightly unfortunate having to actively label students as bottom of the table however i dont recall anyone really cared beyond not being in the same class as some of their friends.
Original post by JDINCINERATOR
Do you think schools should have ability sets for children? I think that there certainly should be ability sets as they'll allow the slower children a chance to learn at a pace that benefits them, but I don't think the sets should be numbered. When I was at Juniors school I was in bottom sets and I remember that one of my mates was in middle set for English and I wanted to be there too. I get the feeling that children in bottom sets will feel like they are less worthy, though I imagine most won't really care.
It is a tough call. On the one hand, it makes sense. Students of similar ability all working together. It makes planning and teaching really easy from a teaching point of view. However, the kids hate it. If you are in top set you are terrified of slipping up. Bottom sets try really hard because they are used to failing and the middle sets is where all the behaviour because you have either given up because you have no chance of going up or don't care because you are not in the top set.
There is a growing body of evidence that suggests setting doesn't work for the reasons pointed out. A school near where I work has been trialling the teaching technique of mastery. This calls for mixed ability teaching and they have seen a fall in behaviour and an increase in outcomes across the cohort.
https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/teaching-learning-toolkit/setting-and-streaming
https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/teaching-learning-toolkit/mastery-learning
Original post by hotpud
It is a tough call. On the one hand, it makes sense. Students of similar ability all working together. It makes planning and teaching really easy from a teaching point of view. However, the kids hate it. If you are in top set you are terrified of slipping up. Bottom sets try really hard because they are used to failing and the middle sets is where all the behaviour because you have either given up because you have no chance of going up or don't care because you are not in the top set.
There is a growing body of evidence that suggests setting doesn't work for the reasons pointed out. A school near where I work has been trialling the teaching technique of mastery. This calls for mixed ability teaching and they have seen a fall in behaviour and an increase in outcomes across the cohort.
https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/teaching-learning-toolkit/setting-and-streaming
https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/teaching-learning-toolkit/mastery-learning
There is a growing body of evidence that suggests setting doesn't work for the reasons pointed out. A school near where I work has been trialling the teaching technique of mastery. This calls for mixed ability teaching and they have seen a fall in behaviour and an increase in outcomes across the cohort.
https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/teaching-learning-toolkit/setting-and-streaming
https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/teaching-learning-toolkit/mastery-learning
I personally think that set 2 is the best set, I liked it as I was learning the same content as the set 1 pupils but in a laid-back manner, hated set 1 tbh (too much stress, kind of expected to "know" everything and be the "smartest" etc so wouldn't ask for help in lesson like ever whereas in set 2 was willing to ask for help if needed), Set 3 is good too though I found it too "easy" for Maths.
Original post by Talkative Toad
I personally think that set 2 is the best set, I liked it as I was learning the same content as the set 1 pupils but in a laid-back manner, hated set 1 tbh (too much stress, kind of expected to "know" everything and be the "smartest" etc so wouldn't ask for help in lesson like ever whereas in set 2 was willing to ask for help if needed), Set 3 is good too though I found it too "easy" for Maths.
So the set system failed you in maths and allowed you to coast in set 2.
Original post by hotpud
So the set system failed you in maths and allowed you to coast in set 2.
No I didn't coast in set 2 (got consistent 5's with no revision which I guess is somewhat coasting but I didn't find set 2 "easy" if that makes sense nor did I find it hard i found it to be ok for me) i did coast through set 3 though in Maths (was too easy to the point where I admitted it I think and got moved up as a result), I actually struggled when I was in set 1.
I like being able to learn stuff in a lad back manner that's why I like set 2, I want to be able to learn the same content without all the extra stress and pressure and for me, set 2 does exactly that hence why I like set 2 and 3.
Set 2 is my favourite set overall (not for English as a sucked at that). Set 1 Maths and science sucked for me, I preferred my times in set 2 and 3 (for science I cannot comprehend why the school thought that it was a good idea to put me in set 1 in Y7&Y10 when I was bad at science (getting below a pass) but good at maths). I can understand why I was in set 1 for Maths, for science? Yeah no pure nonsense when I wasn't even consistently passing.
I personally think that sets are a good thing only because in mixed ability classes teachers won't always give different ability students different types of homework depending on their grades, strengths and weaknesses are (so a grade 9 student would get the same HW as a failing student which is bad imo, the grade 9 student needs to given more challenging work or the failing student needs to know the basics before being told to write a 30 Mark essay on Macbeth for example).
Original post by Talkative Toad
No I didn't coast in set 2 (got consistent 5's with no revision which I guess is somewhat coasting but I didn't find set 2 "easy" if that makes sense nor did I find it hard i found it to be ok for me) i did coast through set 3 though in Maths (was too easy to the point where I admitted it I think and got moved up as a result), I actually struggled when I was in set 1.
I'm deliberately arguing the toss here, but if you were being genuinely challenged, perhaps you could have got consistent 6s. Trouble is, 5 is about right for set 2 so you were on target (whatever that means). Still, I am sure you will be fine. You sound like you have your head screwed on!
Original post by hotpud
I'm deliberately arguing the toss here, but if you were being genuinely challenged, perhaps you could have got consistent 6s. Trouble is, 5 is about right for set 2 so you were on target (whatever that means). Still, I am sure you will be fine. You sound like you have your head screwed on!
Nah already done GCSEs and got a 5 in maths (didn't revise because meh, focused on passing English and that), preferred set 2, nothing will convince me that for personally 1 was/is better.
The set structure should be invested or taken more seriously
It’s fine to say, A to B exist but it’s not fine to make it seem a permanent tag. That is to say, for someone like you to have moved up, you have to have someone advocate the numbers are not a fixed tag on the student
This way, people can be promoted and demoted in a working practice where the tag incorporates as much info regarding ability and potential as possible
I don’t think schools have nor care to be like this though. The average person is less practical thinking than the next and in organisations like a school this is no different.
Well done for wanting to overcome the burden of having had to put up with the connotations of being a bottom set student when you was younger. Not everyone gets away from it
It’s fine to say, A to B exist but it’s not fine to make it seem a permanent tag. That is to say, for someone like you to have moved up, you have to have someone advocate the numbers are not a fixed tag on the student
This way, people can be promoted and demoted in a working practice where the tag incorporates as much info regarding ability and potential as possible
I don’t think schools have nor care to be like this though. The average person is less practical thinking than the next and in organisations like a school this is no different.
Well done for wanting to overcome the burden of having had to put up with the connotations of being a bottom set student when you was younger. Not everyone gets away from it
(edited 2 years ago)
In my experience, having sets ended up to be an overall positive. Just to let you know, this is a personal anecdote, hence this doesn’t apply to everyone.
For English, I got put in bottom set with a predicted grade of a 4, and this was because there wasn’t any evidence to give a grade that’s less than 4. Personally, I think that I’ve worked at a 3 but that’s an inconclusive statement considering there’s no appeal to authority. Anyways, I ended up with a 6 but that was due to me realising that my teacher is abysmal at teaching, hence using my own resources and time to improve on it myself. Additionally, my school got like-minded pupils within that set which caused no complaints whatsoever due to the class being taught a pace that everybody was comfortable with and due to many of them already being friends.
If it wasn’t for sets, I wouldn’t have any incentive to study independently (as I would most likely have a pre-existing notion that I’m learning everything in class) neither would I have adequately adjusted to the pace of learning, perhaps causing me to get a grade lower than 6.
For English, I got put in bottom set with a predicted grade of a 4, and this was because there wasn’t any evidence to give a grade that’s less than 4. Personally, I think that I’ve worked at a 3 but that’s an inconclusive statement considering there’s no appeal to authority. Anyways, I ended up with a 6 but that was due to me realising that my teacher is abysmal at teaching, hence using my own resources and time to improve on it myself. Additionally, my school got like-minded pupils within that set which caused no complaints whatsoever due to the class being taught a pace that everybody was comfortable with and due to many of them already being friends.
If it wasn’t for sets, I wouldn’t have any incentive to study independently (as I would most likely have a pre-existing notion that I’m learning everything in class) neither would I have adequately adjusted to the pace of learning, perhaps causing me to get a grade lower than 6.
Original post by JDINCINERATOR
Do you think schools should have ability sets for children? I think that there certainly should be ability sets as they'll allow the slower children a chance to learn at a pace that benefits them, but I don't think the sets should be numbered. When I was at Juniors school I was in bottom sets and I remember that one of my mates was in middle set for English and I wanted to be there too. I get the feeling that children in bottom sets will feel like they are less worthy, though I imagine most won't really care.
It is definitely necessary.
Even I'm in set 1 for maths, and often the pace of the lesson is too slow for me. If we were in classrooms of mixed ability I believe things would be even worse and a lot of time is wasted for students who understand things more quickly. The numbering does not matter, the students would likely figure out the level of each set simply by looking at the students in the respective sets. Definitely in my school experience, the lower sets generally do not care and cannot be bothered. I remember one student saying that he could probably reach the second set if he actually tried, implying that they are usually simply students who are somewhat lazy.
Original post by JDINCINERATOR
Do you think schools should have ability sets for children? I think that there certainly should be ability sets as they'll allow the slower children a chance to learn at a pace that benefits them, but I don't think the sets should be numbered. When I was at Juniors school I was in bottom sets and I remember that one of my mates was in middle set for English and I wanted to be there too. I get the feeling that children in bottom sets will feel like they are less worthy, though I imagine most won't really care.
I'm all for sets. It was nice to be in a class with people with a similar ability to me and to go at a decent pace. Have never been in anything below top set, but I suspect people in lower sets felt the same and preferred going at a slightly slower pace and not feeling intimidated by people who were always getting top marks.
As for not numbering sets, what would be your suggestion? We had different tables for people with different abilities, but everyone still knew that the blue table was for people who were struggling and the red table was for people who were top of the class... Kids are not stupid, they will work out which is the top and bottom set regardless of what you call it.
(edited 2 years ago)
I was moved down to bottom set today, does that mean I'm stupid?
Original post by Alex greenacre
I was moved down to bottom set today, does that mean I'm stupid?
Not at all, you just need to work harder and show you belong in a higher set.
I do kind of but don't say oh your middle set you top set because being bottom set can demorlise pupils it's humiliating knowing your among the least able in the school which can lead to behaviour problems which of course makes its harder for teachers and the pupils who want to learn and improve. What I don't agree with is the tired foundation and higher papers at GCSE why not just give everyone the same paper and not limit them to a 5 that agin is demoralising. When I was at school I was in foundation maths we had letter grades there were 3 tiers (foundation intermediate and higher) and we were told we could only get a D equivalent to a 3 so essentially we were told we could fail that was all there was to it so yeah get rid of foundation and higher papers and let the pupils pass with the grade they deserve.
(edited 1 year ago)
Original post by jonathanemptage
I do kind of but don't say oh your middle set you top set because being bottom set can demorlise pupils it's humiliating knowing your among the least able in the school which can lead to behaviour problems which of course makes its harder for teachers and the pupils who want to learn and improve. What I don't agree with is the tired foundation and higher papers at GCSE why not just give everyone the same paper and not limit them to a 5 that agin is demoralising. When I was at school I was in foundation maths we had letter grades there were 3 tiers (foundation intermediate and higher) and we were told we could only get a D equivalent to a 3 so essentially we were told we could fail that was all there was to it so yeah get rid of foundation and higher papers and let the pupils pass with the grade they deserve.
As someone who struggled with English (core subject) a lot, I would have much preferred if there had been a foundation and higher tier paper just like back in 2016 and prior so that I could have done the foundation tier for English. I didn't/still don't like the fact that for a subject like GCSE English, it's all one tier and that everyone regardless of ability sits the same paper (leads to high/inflated grade boundaries (talking needing to get around 50-55% for a grade 5 here thus made it harder for struggling pupils like myself to pass the subject/lead to less accessibility imo). In Maths and science, if you are more skilled and do higher, 50-55% can get you like a grade 7, no joke or at the bare minimum a grade).
They really need to bring back foundation and higher tier for English Language bare minimum in my opinion (English literature isn't an "essential" subject/is not legally required to do it as far as I'm aware so doesn't strictly need foundation and higher tier).
Also how do you expect a Maths, languages or science paper look then if we remove tiers? Will it be slightly easier than a higher paper but slightly harder than a foundation tier paper then?
(edited 1 year ago)
Did higher tier for everything that had a "tier" though.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- How likely are you to pass science if you are in set 6?
- What sets were/are you in at school?
- I sucks at year 9 but can I improve for 3-9 in year 10?
- Did you enjoy being in a lower set in school?
- Set maths
- Does anyone feel like their set in school let them down?
- How to get into Top Set Maths?
- self study further maths worth it?
- Why is it that some teachers let me have my way in school?
- The higher the set you are in, does it mean you have better teachers?
- Why am I so sad about what happened 7 years ago?
- iDEA Bronze - life hacks using automation
- Starting yr 10 being in lower sets
- GCSE Year 10
- Help I'm in set 2 for maths and set 3 for english
- How do you get moved up a set ?
- Is grammar school actually better?
- Have you ever gone down sets only to go back up again?
- iDEA Automation badge (maker section)
- Why is it that I was able to do combined science higher in set 5 but not in set 6?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 4 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 4 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
