School Sets

I don't have a problem with tiers. Whatever works. Something worth pointing out though is that setting students in school doesn't work. It benefits top set students only. None top set students fair worse than in other settings. The current trend in education and especially in Maths is something called mastery. Part of the mastery framework involves having mixed ability classes.

Why do you think that setting only benefits top students? And for subjects that have tiers how will having no sets work (because I can already see the issues having no sets in GCSE MFL to the point where my teacher admitted that it was a problem to have a grade 3 student in the same class a grade 9 student, especially if they're doing a different tier)?

There is very little evidence that supports it as an idea. Like so many things that schools do, it is one of those interventions which on the surface feels obvious but when you look a bit closer, there is no evidence to support it. Thankfully education has finally caught up and Ofsted are now very keen to see schools implementing evidence based approaches. To help schools wade through the mountain of educational studies the Education Foundation Trust has made a website that summarises key ideas. Here is setting and streaming
https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/teaching-learning-toolkit/setting-and-streaming

Also mixed sets for subjects like, MFL, English, Maths and Sciences rely too much on the teacher being able to simultaneously support, work a teach pupils of vastly different abilities in my opinion. Especially when you combine the fact that for these subjects bar English there are tiers, so those doing foundation tier would have to learn irrelevant content that they wouldn't be assessed on in the exam (same for science when it comes to triple vs combined science). I don't know about anyone else here but my teachers did a pretty poor job when it came to being able to work with teachers of vastly different abilities, they let the struggling students fall behind.

Only reason why I support sets for GCSE MFL btw is because there's a foundation and higher tier other than that, wouldn't care about having sets in such subject (as in I wouldn't see the need for sets if tiers were to go because it's not a core subject).

I have taught a set where half were doing Higher and half Intermediate [when Maths had three tiers]. I had two boards and used different colours - the content did overlap so I'd teach the Intermediate topic then get them working [with the Highers doing relevant questions] then teach the extended 'bits'. It worked but wasn't easy. In the old A level modular spec I sometimes had three different modules going on as the FMaths students had free choice of optionals.

Ah yeah I'm aware that's there's content overlap but under the current foundation and higher tier system (no intermediate unless you're in Wales I think). I'm not sure how you reasonably cope having pupils doing different tiers in the same class, what would the foundation tier students be doing in a lesson on circle theorems (foundation tier Maths doesn't have circle theorems I think but please correct me if I'm wrong) for example?

I guess it depends on how good the teacher is and what they are willing to do to make things accessible for all 🤷🏾*♀️.

Maybe get rid of sets but still separate pupils based on the tier that they are doing but I don't know.

It's much harder with two tiers as there's far less overlap ... even in a selective school I've found you still need sets. We teach Year 7 in classes but by February there is a gap - we put stronger teachers into Year 7 for this reason. [In an old class of mine there was one who is now doing post-doc research in Mats and another who was happy to get a grade C .. a challenge to differentiate such a range well even in Year 7]

That doesn't answer my question on how will no sets work practically for subjects that have tiers? I can see how it can work for English and every other subjects with no tier but can't see how it would work for Maths, Science and MFL unless we we're to ditch tiers because you'd then have some students learning irrelevant content that they wouldn't be assessed on in the exam.

It's called teaching to the top. Everyone learns the same content. The less able get more support and help whilst higher ability are stretched with independent learning tasks. The new Ofsted framework cites a curriculum for life. Education thankfully is no longer just about passing an exam.

Teaching everyone regardless of ability and needs the same content for core subjects and languages is precisely my problem. Also @Muttley79 thoughts?

In my case I was not given more support in English, I simply left behind and the teachers didn't care because they were lazy (apologies for such language towards them) and useless (bar 1 English teacher I had).

So the solution to on how to make this work for subjects that have tiers is to get rid of tiers and make things less accessible for lower performing pupils via expecting Johnny who's getting a grade 3/4 in GCSE Maths to know the same content as Abigail who's getting a 9 for a core subject? Sorry but I can't agree with that when it comes to core subjects.

What if tiers don't get scrapped? Then how does no sets work practically?

Ah - of course. But you are mixing two things up here.
1. The idea that a particular teaching strategy is effective or not
2. That teachers are not competent / lazy.

The whole of primary education is based on single set intakes. You have one class of all abilities per year group. Even in schools that have multiple intakes, there is no setting or streaming.

Then we come to secondary schools, children are split into sets or streams and unsurprisingly the grades take a massive dip. Now, this isn't just down to setting but I would wage a reasonable sum of money that a decent study would find that setting had a big impact. It is interesting to note that the exam factor powerhouses in my area do not set.

Then we come down to your experience. Sure, you had a duff teacher. I am sorry for that. That doesn't of course stop you from developing those skills for yourself - life long learning and all that.

Teaching to a mixed ability group is challenging and requires good planning on the part of the teacher. Given most teachers are given around 2 hours of planning / marking time but teach 21 - 23 hours of lessons a week, perhaps you might understand why lessons are not planned as well as they should. And BTW, that is only lesson planning. In my last school, lesson planning was my lowest priority. Good old Ofsted loves a document and we spent hours writing lengthy documents on curriculum development, schemes of work, assessment plans, assessments and more besides. And that was just for my subject. We did the same again for the PSHE side of things which in my case was form period.

Thankfully I'm now out of that world and teach in a college. Same challenges, older students. I teach mixed ability and thankfully have more time to plan.

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.

See that's the problem you yourself are admitting that it requires good planning from the teacher, I can't trust all teachers to plan properly from Y7-Y11, not having sets will simply make the problem worst in my view but maybe I'm wrong.

My teachers (so I'm not talking about one teacher only here) wouldn't even mark homework properly, no feedback on anything pretty much, they didn't care if you failed sure they might have be concerned and parents evening but beyond that they didn't care (Sixth Form was a different story, teachers were high quality and were good/great bar 1 or 2) etc. Had to rely on external factors to pass those exams to the point where someone who has never taught the subjects I was struggling with in my life did a better job than my teachers did (not all my teachers were bad but the English ones were terrible). But that's obviously a problem with my old old school and not reflective of all schools.

You're still dodging the primary question: if tiers don't get scrapped, how does having no sets work practically in those subjects? (assuming that not everyone only get's put in for higher tier or triple tier).

I just can't support the removal of sets for core subjects and languages (I'd support it for languages in a heartbeat if tiers get scrapped for said subject).

I do think that maybe for Y7 or maybe even the whole of KS3 there shouldn't be sets though or at least wait until pupils have sat some kind of Y7 assessments before putting them into sets (i.e don't solely rely on sat results to put them into sets).

Ah - of course. But you are mixing two things up here.
1. The idea that a particular teaching strategy is effective or not
2. That teachers are not competent / lazy.

The whole of primary education is based on single set intakes. You have one class of all abilities per year group. Even in schools that have multiple intakes, there is no setting or streaming.

The government don't trust teachers. That is why teachers are some of the most monitored employees in the country, why teaching is one of the most stressful jobs and why a third of teachers leave the job within 5 years of qualifying. Maybe we should trust teachers a bit more and give them the time, training and support to allow them to be effective in their jobs? Radical I know, but hey ho. We can hope.

.

The government don't trust teachers. That is why teachers are some of the most monitored employees in the country, why teaching is one of the most stressful jobs and why a third of teachers leave the job within 5 years of qualifying. Maybe we should trust teachers a bit more and give them the time, training and support to allow them to be effective in their jobs? Radical I know, but hey ho. We can hope.

Look - I am not going to argue the toss. My own experience has seen me observe that setting only benefits top sets. The educational research evidence backs that up. There are lots of ways of managing mixed ability classes (see primary). Feel free to google them.

With all due respect, you are offering the classic opinion which is based on the "I went to school therefore am an expert in education". I used to be that person too. Sadly, those in power are also basing their understanding of education on the basis of the fact they too went to school once and feel that setting must work because, well, I was in the top set and I benefitted from setting (see Michael Gove). It is the same fallacy that sees the Tories desperate to roll out a grammar school education despite the overwhelming evidence showing it only benefits those who go to grammar schools.

Wrong - there is setting in every single Primary class I have seen and that goes into the 100s. There are separate tables for Maths and Literacy - with names like hexagon, pentagon, square or animal names but clearly doing different work.