School Sets

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.

I have studeied pedagogy too - the lower sets are smaller in Maths and in the comp where I taught every sinleg student got a GCSE. There's no way they would benefit from learning circle theorems ...

I also disgree with most of what you say. Have you actually been in a Primary classroom recently?

Nah I know people who are teachers and who teach, I know how much planning a teacher needs to do because I see it/hear them talk about it and you're still refusing to answer the question lol.

For subjects that have tiers (Assuming that said tiers don't get scrapped and not everyone gets put in the same tier), how will lack of sets/segregation work practically? I can see it work for every other subject (and do not see the need to have sets for those subjects other than English language maybe) with no tiers (maybe not English language) but can't see how it would work for Maths, Science and MFL without scrapping tiers. If you don't have an answer that doesn't involve scrapping Tiers then that's fine, I'd rather know so that I can stop asking the question and so that I'll give up in trying to get an answer for it.

That isn't setting. That is just a practical form of differentiation.

Oh

"You're still dodging the primary question: if tiers don't get scrapped, how does having no sets work practically in those subjects?"

Fair enough. Back to how to teach 101.

There are loads of strategies you can use and it will ultimately depend on who is in your class or what you are teaching. Here are a few:
- Provide extension questions / tasks for higher abilities allowing more time for lower abilities to complete base work
- Provide help sheets or tutorial videos for lower abilities to use
- Pair students up of similar abilities to work on the same problem (good for practical tasks)
- Mix tasks up with students doing a research and presentation task. This is a real leveller as high abilities don't necessarily enjoy or excel in presentation tasks
- Have students write down processes that explain the steps they need to do to perform a skill
- Provide lower ability students with writing frames or starter sentences
- TA in the classroom to help and support those who need additional help
- Classroom experts (high abilities) provide support and help to lower ability students

From an assessment point of view, you can provide different assessments, but this isn't needed. Assessment questions can be differentiated. For example:
A three mark geography question I have just made up:
What is a bend in a river called?
What is the result of this process?
Describe the process of how bends in rivers occur.

It's a rubbish question but you might expect lower abilities to get 1 mark in this question (meander), middle abilities might understand that it causes ox-bow-lakes and high abilities could describe the process. All taking the same paper but getting differentiated outcomes.

Need I go on?

The only real reason for setting is that it is a hangover from Victorian times when the great and the good did not want to be in the same room as the unwashed. You can pitch your lesson to the perceived ability of the class. However, the kids hate it. Set 2 students wonder why they are not set 1 and set 3 student's behaviour is horrendous because, well, they have nothing to lose. And the set 4 kids - they have only ever known failure and have practically given up. Where as set 1 do benefit, they live in fear of being demoted to set 1.

And then there is the big question of how do you set. What a huge amount of pressure. One test will make or break your school attainment and just like in football leagues, only one or two students move up or down at any one time.

Setting also allows teachers to be lazy. My set three students often had targets that ranges from 2 to 6. In my book that is a mixed ability class but I am sure most teachers saw all students as the same and lazily taught to the middle.

And then there is the evidence you keep ignoring
The EEF page is based on 58 studies
https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/teaching-learning-toolkit/setting-and-streaming

Unions are against it
https://neu.org.uk/streaming-and-setting

The school media are asking questions
https://www.sec-ed.co.uk/best-practice/setting-by-ability-time-to-start-asking-questions-education-classroom-streaming/

However politicians and parents whose darlings are benefitting from being in grammar schools or top sets - well, obviously they don't want anything to change even though a change wouldn't affect their kids. But they hold the balance of power and so the status quo prevails. You appear to be in the same camp.

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

These all sound like great ideas (and things I advocate for when it comes to homework especially) but how many teachers/schools will actually do this? (I know that many will but that's not all schools) I would support this if most schools were doing it and had the resources needed (more funding and support along with making teaching a more attractive job) so that they could do this.

And what would you do in a lesson on circle theorems for example where GCSE foundation tier Maths students would not be assessed on such topic (wouldn't enter them for higher tier), do you just give them a different task to then whilst you're teaching the higher tier pupils circle theorems?

I'd love for this to happen but the doubt in my is saying that won't always happen, would hope that it happens everywhere though (especially for core subjects like English).

These all sound like great ideas (and things I advocate for when it comes to homework especially) but how many teachers/schools will actually do this? (I know that many will but that's not all schools) I would support this if most schools were doing it and had the resources needed (more funding and support along with making teaching a more attractive job) so that they could do this.

And what would you do in a lesson on circle theorems for example where GCSE foundation tier Maths students would not be assessed on such topic (wouldn't enter them for higher tier), do you just give them a different task to then whilst you're teaching the higher tier pupils circle theorems?

I'd love for this to happen but the doubt in my is saying that won't always happen, would hope that it happens everywhere though (especially for core subjects like English).

They would not have got a grade at all because they would have completely lost confidence in Maths and given up - some were dyscalculic - I'm saying setting is needed in Maths ...

You know NOTHING about me so do not make assumptions.

You are right.

I have no idea how many teachers would do it. The solution to the problem you pose it to fix the teachers rather than implement a system that looks like it might work for poor teachers but is proven not to benefit students.

You are coming at it from the wrong direction. You are suggesting poor teacher do better in tiered teaching. The evidence does not bare this out. If anything it is a system that allows poor teachers to hide.

I'm not saying that it's always better for the teacher to have tiers but in my opinion there's no point in having mixed classes for core subjects if the teacher will let the failing pupils fall behind or they slow things down for the whole class (because of the failing pupils) which could lead to the top pupils not being challenged enough (assuming that the teacher isn't willing to set different tasks to different pupils based on their ability or do the stuff that you think that teachers could be doing in mixed ability classes).

Plenty of guidance on how to teach maths to mixed ability classes. Grouping yes. Streaming no.
https://thirdspacelearning.com/blog/every-school-leader-know-mastery-mixed-ability-maths-class/

Also lots of literature acknowledging folks like yourself who have a deep seated belief in the status quo despite the reality being very different. Here is one of many examples.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0742051X1731274X

I am merely echoing the current thinking based on studies. No doubt the tide of what is fashionable in education will no doubt shift as it always does but I am convinced that after 6 years teaching sets it only favours the tops sets just as a grammar education only favours those who go to grammar schools.

the first link refers to primary schools not secondary school settings where you'll have some students doing Foundation Tier and others doing higher tier, I'm wondering what you'd do in a circle theorems for example whereby the foundation tier pupils will not be assessed on that content in the exams i.e how would the lesson/teaching work if you don't at a bare minimum keep foundation tier and higher tier pupils separate? What would the foundation tier pupils be learning/doing during that lesson? (same thing applies to every other subject with tiers). Asked this in another post.

I don't see the issue with lack of sets in primary schools either (sorry should have stated this earlier) my issue is having them in core subjects in secondary school or any secondary school subject that has a tier (MFL, Maths and Science).

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 think we are coming from different directions. You are looking at the system we currently have and trying to find solutions to the problems it causes.

I am saying the current system is flawed, doesn't work and needs a big rethink. The obvious solution to what you talk about is that everyone sits the same exam. Students who get the highest marks complete more of the exam. Problem solved. Except that won't happen because we still have Victorians running our 21st Centaury Education system.

That's still somewhat dodging the question lol. Again not everyone can or wants to do Higher tier Maths, MFL and triple science (i.e can make the idea of everyone doing the same exam out of the window), so what's the solution in that specific context? What do you make a pupil who's been entered for foundation tier do in that lesson?

I am dodging the question because it is a poor question. To paraphrase, you are effectively asking the question - how do I teach MFL and Maths to different pupils in the same class? Obviously you can't teach foundation maths and top tier maths to the same class because they are different papers, with different syllabuses and different assessments, just like History and Geography or Art and Science.

My point is that sets in same subjects to not work. A school of 1000 pupils will probably have up to 2 classes per 4 sets per year group. Perhaps the bottom sets will do foundation, the rest will do the higher paper and of those, only the top set will benefit from that setting system i.e. they will do better than if no sets were put in place. (see copious evidence I have cited). The other half will not benefit i.e. they do worse than if there were no setting system. That is my point. Setting does not benefit the majority of students and there are lots of ways of solving that problem, mastery of which I would have hoped you would appreciate as it is generally being implemented in school maths departments as I type. The school I trained at (Outstanding) didn't have sets and the school my son goes to also does not have sets. I know of a number of other schools in the Manchester area that are adopting this approach too. This is something becoming more common amongst the more progressive thinking secondary schools and their results are speaking for themselves.

By all means tell me sets are the best thing ever, but please at the very least, back up this claim with some evidence that is better than the "I went to school therefore I am an expert" opinion generally cited by commentators and politicians on educational matters.