Teaching to get the best out of a child: is setting or mixed ability the best way?

How best to teach children is a question which few people agree on - even though parents, teachers and children would benefit from a definitive answer. One issue which does keep cropping up is whether to set children by ability or to teach them all together. This is a topic on which there is strong disagreement.

On Women's Hour last week, Professor Jo Boaler talked about how she is in favour of mixed ability teaching for her subject, maths. She then followed this up, summing up her thoughts in a letter to the Times where she stated: "The highest maths-achieving countries in the world — countries as diverse as Finland and Japan — teach all students to high levels and communicate to all students that they can do well in maths. In England we do the opposite and assign young children to low groups, which we know they never get out of. We then lament the fact that millions of school children leave school unable to use basic mathematics. Teachers may tell you that it is better to divide children into different levels in order to teach them well, but the reality is that it is easier for teachers to divide and label children in such ways."

I spoke to Professor Boaler this morning to confirm whether she believed in mixed ability teaching for all subjects. She said she did, and is passionate on this subject, particularly when it comes to primary aged pupils. Younger children, she says, should never be grouped by ability. It just turns the ones put into lower ability groups, off learning.

It's ironic that the day I heard Professor Boaler speak on Women's Hour was the same one when I met up with Shadow Schools Minister Nick Gibb. He strongly disagrees with mixed ability teaching, suggesting that even in primary schools "there is some benefit in having separate classes for early literacy and potentially for maths." When it comes to secondary school, he thinks that every subject should be streamed. He also believes that this will help all children.

"We believe that every academic subject - including history and geography - should be set by ability in comprehensive schools in each year group," he said.

Mr Gibb refers to research, particularly by Kulik, to back up his point. He also says that the key is to tailor the curriculum to the ability level and that when this happens, there are huge increases in educational attainment amongst the more able pupils and no falls in achievement lower down. He even argues that you see a small RISE in self esteem amongst the least able children and a small fall in self
esteem amongst the most able children.

"I also believe that the better and more experienced teachers should be asked to teach the least able sets, which should also have smaller class sizes," he says. "In this way, not only are these children given the space and time to learn they will also have very able teachers. Much research on
setting highlights the fact that the lower sets often have the weakest teachers. This is an indictment of the schools involved in the research rather than an objective critique of setting."

It's a fascinating argument. Many private schools use setting and streaming, and so did a lot of state schools in the 70s. It then went out of fashion, but has been used more often in recent years. Many parents of brighter pupils are strongly in favour, as they want to see their children "stretched". How best to do this is a moot point.

I think that people's views on setting depend hugely on which set they were in at school. Those in the bottom sets often argue that it made them feel stupid, and inclined to give up on a subject. Research has suggested that those in the lower sets do lose out in terms of self-esteem, while those in the higher sets benefit. Meanwhile those in the top sets often say they felt inspired to carry on achieving, and were pushed by being surrounded by very able peers.

Both these responses are interesting because they suggest that setting might be good for more able children, and not for the less able. However, Nick Gibb argues that all children benefit from being separated according to ability, as long as they are taught well, and as long as the sets are "fluid." Meanwhile Professor Boaler argues that mixed ability teaching benefits all, including the brightest, as long as it is done properly.

"It's not okay to expect all children to do the same work in these mixed ability groups," she adds. "They need to work at different levels, which is hard for the teacher, but means that achievement levels go up massively."

There has, of course, been a great deal of research into this issue. "Complex instruction" which mixes children of all abilities so that they can help each other, has recently been reported to be a success. Professor Boaler is the woman pioneering this in the UK, and found her experiences of it in the US to be a fair and impressive way of teaching. But the subject is still controversial, and as with so many issues, there seems to be research to prove each side....

Read School Gate:

Teaching according to ability: do you know what table your child is on?

What school league tables don't tell us

Larger classes and fewer places for children: what's happening to education?

Comments

[Whimsey]

If m/a teaching levels UP, then great, if it levels DOWN, then not.

Maybe class size is a huge factor in whether m/a teaching works - I could imagine teaching a small class that is m/a, and ensuring each less-able child gets the extra help they need to 'level up', but in a large class I would think that is very hard if not impossible.

Maybe the ideal is to have m/a classes, then 'breakout groups' for the less able to ensure they have enough time and attention to keep up with the more able?

I agree that it can be very mentally stimulating to be taught above your level, in the sense that it inspires you to reach higher and seize that level, but if the gap is too great, you just can't 'catch up' and so flounder more and more, and get more and more behind and below.

So maybe it's the range of the m/a that is a factor as well?

I may well be wrong here, but I usually hear that maths is a 'differnt' subject in that there are people with a 'maths brain' who just get maths much much faster than even bright other children, and so need a tier of teaching to themselves because they are just lightening speed compared to the others?? Don't know whether that's true or not.

Irrespective however of the entire m/a or setting argument, the MAIN purpose of education is to find something (anything!) that every child is good at, and develop that talent/skill/ability. Everyone's good at something, but sometimes it can be hard to spot what that is if it falls outside the usual curriculum. (Those with spatial skills are usually poorly served, in comparison with those with verbal and numerical skills, in schools, because schools tend to be run by those with verbal and numerical skills, not spatial skills!)

[Jo]

I remeber being in mixed ability classes in bog standard comp. A mix of behavior and being naturally ahead of most of the onther students meant that I was able to basically do nothing for a year. My mum had to take me out of that school and send me else where as I really wasn't being taught. I would say that fluid setting is better as I did better out of it and I don't think we have enought excellent teachers in the UK to manage 'complex instruction'. I think you will get some teachers/schools doing it well but many not. The kids will then be stuck either at the top, bottem or middle not being taught properly.

[Rachel]

My daughter has a learning disability and has had to go to mainstream school, where of course most of the work is beyond her. Her school does operate mixed ability teaching (unlike my other daughter's school where they are all streamed - both at state primaries by the way) but what they do is deliver a standard lesson to everyone and then they have three levels of activities that the children have to do. For the lower ability children these activities were often laughable - while other children would be doing experiments in a science class for example, the lower ability children would be colouring in a picture and doing a word search.

Meanwhile daughter at the streamed school, who is also in the low ability grous, is doing activities which that teacher has set for them based on their abilities.

Look, these lower ability group kids are never going to suddenly 'get' it and start performing as well as the more able. Why make lessons even more boring for them by trying to make them the same as everyone else? What must that do for their self esteem?

[Cheesecake]

The only subject that was streamed was maths, and that was only for the two years we did our GCSEs. This meant those in the top set were being challenged with the A Level material, and the other sets were taught at a more appropriate level. Mixed ability groups help nobody. The bright kids get bored, and the ones who take a bit longer to understand the subject will end up feeling stupid. And I say this as someone who was in the middle.

[oneopinionatedmother]

If m/a teaching levels UP, then great, if it levels DOWN, then not

my m/a lessons in Community college aimed to get everyone in the A-C bracket - which is the measure of success for state secondaries. for that school, that meant pushing D students to get C's.

i expect many schools have ths as their aim. Therefore, for the average kid, M/A levels UP. FOR higher or lower ability, it leaves one lot behind and the other bored stiff.

for me, it meant treading water (vile boredom, sharing lessons pitched at the all-but-disnumerate) in maths for three years then getting a real shock when i started A level and had to do some work for a change.

i am all in favour of setting therefore - it allows effort to be focussed on illiterate/disnumerate students as well as allowing higher level students to excel.

@cheesecake - well said!!

[Jennie]

We must remember it's not fair just to bring the would-be bottom set up to an acceptable level. Bright children need special attention too.

Those bright children will be our doctors, our lawyers, our journalists, our writers... and hopefully our politicians. It isn't fair not to stretch them because they had the misfortune to be born bright.

[J]

I was taught in sets for maths, right from about age 6, only we didn't know which sets was which - this was in about year 2, so we just sat on different tables, and the teachers never let on which was which, of course we kind of guessed, but we didn't *really* know.

However, at secondary school, i was supossedly in a set, but it was so mixed ability that it was useless (I admit, this isn't the case for everyone, i'm doing my A level maths a year early)... and much as i hate to admit it, i think it is better for the majority to stream as little as possible... to be fair, the really bright kids just catch up anyway.

Although, I spent 5 years of maths lessons looking out of the window, which was very boring!

[Ivan]

It defies belief that anyone still thinks that the most able children will fulfil their potential if they are taught with less able children. Private schools of course will continue to set by ability and so continue to increase the gulf between them and the underperforming state sector. It's also crazy that the brightest children are taught in large classes with less experienced teachers. Again, the one-size-fits-all state sector fails to offer bright children the same opportunities as they would get in the private sector if only they had the money.

[Rachel E.]

Why is it that it is taken for granted that streaming is effective in sport, but not in academics? Expecting children to learn math in mixed ability groups is as preposterous as asking Serena and Venus Williams to play tennis with me every day. Yes, I might benefit marginally, but they would be harmed immensely.

[Jeremy]

Schools didn't really stream when I was at school, you either managed or you didn't. My sons primary school didn't stream, but his secondary school does. He does so much better in school now and doesn't become stressed or upset as he no longer sees everyone understanding everything and he struggling to do so.
He was in the bottom set for everything but French when he was first streamed, now he is in 5 out of 10 sets for everything. Having the extra attention at work at your level helps children learn so much better and it makes them more confident about speaking up when they don't understand a new concept.

[john gill]

It depends on the child and behaviour.

Dim kids, but behaved, benefit from mixed ability approaches.

Bright kids, don't care, they either screw-up or rule the world.

[Glen]

I've taught in several schools where the most senior and experienced teachers took the top sets, leaving newly qualified or weak teachers to take the bottom sets - immoral, but surprisingly common. It is seen as a perk of seniority.

Bottom sets need special skills from teachers, including a thorough understanding of their subjects. Setting can work if the less able pupils are valued as much as the brighter ones.

But, that is not likely to happen when only those that can reach a grade C GCSE are worth pushing hard for league table position purposes.

[Richard McKelvey]

I found all the comments made about education interesting. I was trained as a teacher in USA. I feel the best way to teach is that of all students of all ability's in one class. Special consideration for each student at their own level or individualized instruction. The concept of the old one room schoolhouse has merit, the young or poor student gains insight from the better students lessons. Meanwhile the better student gained a review of ones studies by seeing the younger or poorer students being taught material they had already learned.
The better students also had the opportunity to help the poorer students with their lessons while the teacher taughts some other students a different lesson. This in itself reinforced their own learned skills. In comparison with the old one room schools, the modern schools of today show a lack of abilty in the long run.
Millions of pounds or millions of dollars are spent each year on education. With the millions spent, how many Edison's, Thoreau's. Einstein's or Churchill's are produced or graduated each year! With the budget of millions or perhaps billions spent in all country's, the educational systems can not guarantee students who can come close to developing students with abilities equal to those as above.
Perhap's modern education can be infered to be like the idea in manufactuing, that quality controll can be found in quanity if not in quality itself of a product!

[Whimsey]

As to which teachers should teach lower-ability children, my theory is that they should NOT be taught by teachers who found that subject easy, because those teachers will not have the faintest idea just WHY the children find the subject hard!

Maths, for example, needs to be taught to non-maths children by a teacher who struggled themselves, but who did then achieve learning in maths, because they will understand just what problems of comprehension and apprehension the pupils are having. Plus they can say 'when I was your age I was useless at maths too, and now I'm not, and you needn't be either'.

It's the same for PE - the 'sluggards' should never be taught by the super-fit PE teachers, but by those ordinary mortals who have had to struggle to get fit themselves.

I think we also need more acceptance that children will be 'useless' at some subjects, and not mind about it. There is a clear intellectual snobbery currently at work in education whereby it's perfectly 'OK' to be 'useless at art/music/drama' and no one thinks you're stupid, but if you are useless at a 'proper subject' (maths, English, etc) then of course you're stupid....

[Professor Jo Boaler]

I will respond to some of the comments by saying that:

1) of course all mixed ability teaching has not been conducted well as we know it requires a particular approach to go with it, which includes different level work being available for different students so everyone can be stretched. It sounds like a number of people commenting did not experience that.
2) The question shouldn't be do we have ability grouping or not, it is more subtle and about timing. It is fine to put children into groups when they are entered for GCSE but before then we should give as many students as possible the chance to achieve at the highest levels. Research has shown that the later ability grouping is used the more successful students are. In our country we are now grouping children at age 7, (or younger in some schools) with half of each year group being told they are not good at maths. Teachers make decisions that they don't have the knowledge or right to make, that will determine children's futures. This is much too young and goes against all we know about child development and learning.
3. Research has shown that high and low achieving students do better in mixed ability groups (well taught). Teachers of sets often presume they can treat all children the same, which is an incorrect assumption and results in top sets often being very stressful and difficult places (especially for girls).
4. People who have been through a school system focused on promoting a few students (as we have in England), rather than all students, often cannot see any alternatives to setting, but countries that top the world in achievement do not use it at all. If we read postings from people who had been through such classrooms they would read very differently to those above. In today's education system, dominated by targets, levels and tests, it takes a very courageous educator or parent to step forward and question whether there is something fundamentally wrong in the way we treat students.

[Whimsey]

"of course all mixed ability teaching has not been conducted well as we know it requires a particular approach to go with it, which includes different level work being available for different students so everyone can be stretched"

I think this is the deal breaker here. The UK education system is stretched to breaking point, it's collapsing all around us, with oversized classes, harrassed and stressed teachers, high teacher churn and exiting from the profession, chronic lack of headteachers, in-school violence and bad behaviour levels soaring, run down buildings, lack of maths/science teachers, and, worst of all, the emergence of a feral uneducatable underclass doomed tobe NEETS and a complete drain on the economy at huge societal cost to the rest of us and to hideous personal cost to themselves.

ie, the Education System in this country is in an emergency situation.

SO this is NO TIME to start preaching 'better education' than requires far more teacher support, retraining, complex class structures and activities, etc etc etc.

So, yes, m/a teaching might well be the bees' knees. But we can't get the bees' toes sorted right now.

Putting it sharply and bluntly, teachers have a LOT more on their plate right now than whether it's ideal or not ideal to teach m/a classes. A lot of them are just trying to get through a working day without being knifed or assaulted by psychokids (see feral underclass above).

If I might speak plainly (oh go on, Whimsey, do) - isn't it time that the professional educationsts, safe in their higher ed ivory towers etc, went down on the shop floor and stood up in front of a bunch of 30 plus l5 year olds, and see how long they survived, before preaching to working teachers all this airey-fairey stuff about m/a teaching being better etc etc.

Yes, do all this 'clever stuff' fine - but NOT when there's a fire burning in the education system.

In short, this is a pointless and unnecessary debate that is about as appropriate as suggesting teachers eat brioches for lunch......

[edward green]

Having endured the comprehensive system as a child at the higher end of the ability spectrum I can assure all that the Professor is wrong in every particular.

The brightest are often resented, and, if not able to physically take care of themselves, bullied or ostracised, they are often also left alone without an education. Sure they may prosper in later life but their parents pay their taxes too and they have as much right to an education as anyone else.

The slowest are often left floundering, by the tasks set and - only uneconomically small class sizes can cope at all.

I guarantee that she is of the political left and forcing her beliefs onto her experience. Setting and streaming - both fluid, a good standard of teacher and parental buy-in are the three most important elements to education.

[Malcolm McLean]

What seems to have been missed is that education is more important for the bright ones.

Those who are in the bottom quartile of the ability range need to be taught to read and write and use a pocket calculator. However they are unlikely ever yo go to university, probably won't use any academic subject in their jobs, usually won't have any personal interests we could call intellectual.

The top few, however, go on to difficult university courses, where the unprepared often fall by the wayside. They are quite likely to use maths or their degree subject directly in their work. They will contribute to Times blogs or otherwise fill their leisure with activities that depend on schoolwork. Most importantly for society, you need a few very bright people at the top to make the nuclear power stations and sat navs work.

So the interests of the top set should come first.

[Whimsey]

I probably sounded a bit harsh. For all I know, professional educationists may spend half their working lives teaching (or attempting to teach) 5C.

Nevertheless, my basic beef holds - there are, right now, simply FAR more urgent issues for those in charge of education to sort out, starting with violence and disorder in schools.

M/a might be briliant, or it might not. Right now, it's irrelevant to the current needs.

[Jo]

YAY Whimsey!

[Jane]

Having worked in a school where setting was frowned upon, I have seen the damage and chaos that can be caused by m/a classes. Many times classes were disrupted by bored kids with attitude problems, thereby holding back those who wanted to learn.

My son presently goes to a school where they both set and teach in single sex classes, for years 7-9. This gives the girls an opportunity to learn without having to put up with boys "peacocking behaviour"; the curriculum can be tailored to appeal to boys in subjects like English, and the classes are taught to the correct levels for the abilities within. My son is thriving in this environment and I expect his sister to do likewise next year.

I see no reason why any other school cannot adopt this pattern. The GCSE results from this school are pretty good too!

[Cathy]

Whimsey: 'As to which teachers should teach lower-ability children, my theory is that they should NOT be taught by teachers who found that subject easy, because those teachers will not have the faintest idea just WHY the children find the subject hard!'

Spot on! That's my experience; I do struggle to teach reading to children who find it difficult [even though, as you know, I have the patience of a saint ;)] because I can't empathise with them in the least. I didn't find maths as easy as a child and as a young teacher had to 'relearn' mathematical thinking in order to teach it. As a result, I'm far more patient explaining maths to slow kids. My OH, who's a mathematician, tears his remaining hair out trying to explain maths homework.

[Cathy]

Glen: 'I've taught in several schools where the most senior and experienced teachers took the top sets, leaving newly qualified or weak teachers to take the bottom sets - immoral, but surprisingly common. It is seen as a perk of seniority.'

Yep - and it's what put me off teaching secondary English, knowing I'd have to serve my apprenticeship fighting with kids who didn't want to be there. And trying to go into sixth-form college/grammar school/private school would have been a cop-out for me.

It makes a mad kind of sense ... chuck teachers in at the deep end, see if they sink or swim; if they prove their worth, reward them by letting them splash around in the shallows. Why does it make me think of ducking witches, I wonder? You just can't win.

[Whimsey]

Cathy, glad my theory isn't hogwash. It's just that it does seem obvious that if you find a subject easy, you will find it hard to understand why someone else doesn't. This sort of thing happens over IT as well. As a man to explain how to do something on the PC and (by and large!) they will get INCREDIBLY COMPLICATED about it - but ask a woman and they will just tell you the fastest, easiest way of doing something.(Because women undrstand that PCS ARE NOT INTERESTING IN THEMSELVES, they are just tools to enable writing/talking/communicating etc)(which are very interesting...)

As for the perks of teaching the A level set, well, I can see why it appeals, but I suppose it would be fairer if it was spread out more.

I have a theory (another one, eh, Whimsey?!) that the best teachers to teach the 'tough kids' are the PE teachers, who mostly have a second subject to their bow, as they will be the most likely to be able to keep discipline in a rowdy class and get the 'respect' because of their physical prowess. (I guess I'm talking boys here.)

[Whimsey]

" the curriculum can be tailored to appeal to boys in subjects like English, "

Jane, that makes sense. After all, it must be hard to find an English text that both boys and girls will find appealing as most appeal more to one than the other. Eg, Lord of the Flies for boys and P&P for girls, etc.

History too, is an obvious subject where the boys will like the wars and weapons (my son spent a glorious Year 7 doing maedival warfare in huge detail - he could now invest a castle and defend a siege no problem!), whereas girls will probably like dynasties and social history more.

Yes, this may seem horribly stereotyped, but if it engages children mentally, as opposed to turning them off completely, it seems valid enough in basic outline.

[Amabel]

"Complex instruction" which mixes children of all abilities so that they can help each other, has recently been reported to be a success."

A success for who? Not so long ago I was a bright child who was forced into this - I didn't have the maturity or the empathy to teach my less-able peers, leaving me frustrated with myself and them and dreading lessons where 'peer-supported learning' was used. From personal experience, setting not only helps to stretch bright children, it also gives them a chance to work to their full potential without feeling embarrassed about their ability.

[Whimsey]

It also smacks of teaching on the cheap. Hey, let's get the kids to teach each other!

Education Minister: But Sir Humphrey, you can't save on teacher salaries by getting the children to teach each other!

Sir Humphrey: You can if you call it Peer-Supported Learning, Minister.

However, although it may well not be helpful to all children, viz Amabel's experience, I think it's true that being able to explain something is proof you understand it (and reinforces that you know it)

[Kev]

In Japan and Finland mixed ability teaching may work well, but in those countries I suspect teenagers' attitude to education is very different to Britain.

Here, high ability pupils, especially ones that are keen, tend to be picked on in mixed ability classes.

I'm sure Boaler's strategy could work in the short term with able and motivated teachers, and no doubt that's what her research shows. But it runs against the grain of British culture, and won't work generally.

[Jeremy]

I remember doing these SAT's and I was told it was unimportant by peers, I used to sleep for 5-6 hours a day and had family problems and depression on the day. My mothers side of the family are are all in scientist professions, I was put in the '3rd' set and had the misfortune in GCSE to have 12 different science teachers because NOONE cared. All these people saying 'don't hold the bright kids back!' are forgetting that there is NO MOBILITY to move up a set nor is there any confidence built. I managed to get a Double awards science, but in the end I had the last laugh graduating with a 1:1 in Psychology and intend to do a masters and then a PhD.

I was a bright kid, but I didn't have the motivation to truly do well and ended up my teenage years more interesting in partying, but I still managed to get good A levels and GCSE. Had I not been in classes full of obnoxious chavs and being bullied (which affected my grades) I would have been in the top set for most of the subjects.

You may not like the idea of m/a but I think it is the most fair, the only problem is class size, once classes reach a size of 15 watch all those daydreamings 'D' pupils churn out A's.

[AForeigner]

I grew up in a country and went through a system where setting was introduced in Maths, English, and German, when I got into secondary school (in the type of school that I joined). The result of this change was remarkable: the parents of those children who didn't get into the top set, sent their younger children (whenever somehow possible, and yes this is a question of money) into schools where setting did not happen. As a result, the schools with setting got more of those kids from low income families or families in which education was less valued and less supported. Consequently the overall level of ability in these schools was lowered. Obviously, the intention of introducing setting was a different one.

As a kid in those days my own feeling was that setting was mainly beneficial academically for the more able ones. I was one of the 10% who was in the top set for the three subjects. Clearly, I was a bit of an outcast in my class in the other subjects.

I think setting mainly benefits teachers and 'the system'. Many kids, when not put under pressure because of exams and by parents, would be o.k. on the whole with being patient with their slower peers. It's more an adult thing in this country of 'achieving ones full potential' as fast as possible with as few obstacles as possible that spoils many kids' natural tendency to value cooperation over competition.

I suppose I agree with those other posters who say that setting works in this country because of the mentality, and other systems work better in other countries with a different mindset towareds cooperation.

[oldandrew]

Boaler's been producing research on this for years. The greatest irony, I think, is that somebody who is lecturing on maths education is producing research that even a bright GCSE student could identify as having no statistical validity.

Of course, the problem here in proving the superiority of setting is that the benefits of setting only apply if the teaching is of a reasonable quality. Low sets often benefit least because they are given the worst teachers. It is only when you look at good teaching that the benefits of setting appear (what I've seen on Boaler's research is invariably about bad schools). In real life it is hard to miss the extent to which good teachers (i.e. teachers who actually teach) invariably want setting and bad teachers (i.e. teachers who want kids to teach each other, or do worksheets) support mixed ability.

I have written about it here:

http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/2007/04/15/mixed-ability-teaching-doesnt-exist/

[Zoya]

I don't know about Finland but I wouldn't say the education system in Japan is successful. It drains people of their passion and doesn't allow them creativity or personal opinions. The Japanese education system is great at making kids pass exams and not very good for much else.

By the time they enter university a surprisingly large amount of people are shy and inarticulate. Many develop psychological problems because their whole lives were geared towards university entrance examinations, and now that they've achieved that goal there's nothing left to play for. Massive swathes of people leave university with no aspirations and end up working temporary part-time jobs and spending the money on frivolities.

Things we take for granted in the UK, like romance and dating, are thin on the ground here as many people have difficulties relating to new people. In fact, dating is seen in a similar way to an entrance examination, just another long hard slog to the next inevitable rite of passage, marriage. Many would rather abstain from love like many others abstain from careers. School gave them the impression that everything is just too much effort.

Our education system has problems but I would not swap it with Japan's.

[BDS]

stream stream stream stream stream!!

As a student, and now as a teacher, I really do believe it is the best thing. As a student, I was always happier in the classes that were streamed (Maths and languages), regardless of whether or not I was in a higher set (I was for languages and I definitely wasn't for maths, even requesting to be moved down a maths set in year 10 when all was completely lost).

Classes in which we weren't streamed were a completely frustrating and demoralising experience, whether this was in English (where as a higher ability speller I had to put up with spelling tests aged 15 which contained words such as 'separate') or in PE (where I was useless and could have benefited from being in a class where more targeted help was available, rather than being in the same class as competitive gymnasts).

As a teacher, I now teach English to anglophone classes in an international school, where in the same class I have students who will easily receive an A* in the exam as well as students who will struggle for a D grade. Differentiation between such wide gulfs of ability is a challenge at best. How is that fair on anyone? I feel like I am always leaving at least one student behind despite my best efforts and ultimately it is they who will suffer - so why not get over this PC mumbo jumbo and allow students to be taught in more targeted groups, making things easier for all?

The key to success in streaming/setting is regular internal assessment of children so that they can move sets as and when it's appropriate, in order to avoid putting students in a box and leaving them with that label for life.

[jas]

Ultimately it depends on the quality of teaching and family attitudes to education

Our school had sets for the key subjects, when you have one person in a top set that "resents" it as he was to be in the same as he less gifted mates, then disruption is the norm.

All the kids that did not care about education tended to have families that had the same mindset.

[Margie]

Piffle! Why is it the notion of streaming in education is so abhorrent to so many when the notion of 'streaming' in, say the Premier League is not? The day Manchester United or Chelsea or whoever take on people with two left feet (and glasses...), then maybe we should think about streaming in eductaion.

[Whimsey]

I think so much depends on the individual personality of the child. A less academically-able child in a m/a set could react in different ways, depending on their personality and character. It could be that they see the brighter kids forging ahead and they think 'hell, I could do that! And I damn well will, and they won't get the better of me!' or they could do the reverse 'it's hopeless, I'm hopeless, I'll never catch up, I just give in'.

Of course, they could have those attitudes even if they were set.
An earlier post mentioned 'mobility' and that, of course is key - if a child in a lower set knows that with hard work and determination and perseverence they can improve to the point of being promoted to the next set up, then they could well think the effort worth it. If they know they're just stuck in the lower set anyway, why bother?

[Whimsey]

I think if setting is to work, there have to be lots of sets/classes, or it is far, far too clumsy a division.

The normal distribution of academic ability has the usual bulge in the middle, and small numbers at either end. Yet if there are only two sets - upper and lower, the divide will come numerically right through the middle of the bulge, so there is far too little difference between the bottom of the top set and the top of the bottom set.

[Whimsey]

I wonder how much the issue of m/a teaching is influenced not by evidence, but by ideology.

I know in my day, m/a was 'all the rage' because it was seen as inclusive and non-divisive, and non-elitist, etc etc etc. ie, it was ideologically driven mostly.

I don't know what happened in the meantime - like most people, I have a 'hole in my memory' when it comes to education, as there is a gap of decades between my personal memories and now whatever is happening to my son's generation education wise (for example, I had no idea until the fuss over poor literacy erupted a few years ago that phonics had ever been dropped!).

So, did m/a teachng go out of vogue, and has now made a comeback, or is it still/again a 'hard-core extremist' position, or what?

It does seem to be associated with left-wing ideologies, just as streaming/setting is associated with right wing ones, but I don't know whether that's fair or not.

(It may be akin to the irony over grammar schools - that a whole lot of lefties did well in life thank you very much courtesy of grammar schools having lifted them out of the lower orders where they would have been doomed to spend their lives hewing wood and drawing water....)

[Nikki]

I'm a primary school teacher, and we were having a discussion about this subject the other day in the staffroom. Our conclusions were that, in primary education at least, mixed ability teaching is best in English, as even those children who struggle with the writing process still often have excellent ideas, and benefit from hearing the vocabulary used by brighter children. They can all enjoy the stories and texts used in lessons, and pick up on punctuation taught to some extent. They can all aspire to perform as well as the best children in the class and can learn from them.

However, in maths, when teaching mixed ability classes I found it very difficult, as you would have some children in the class who could not even count to 20 and some who were ready to learn basic algebra! This meant the most able children were bored a lot of the time, and the least able were scared and confused because they didn't understand a lot of the things I was talking about, but still thought that was what I was expecting them to achieve. Now we teach maths in sets, and it means that the whole lesson can be geared towards helping the children learn at the appropriate level, rather than having to compromise.

[oneopinionatedmother]

hum, lets look at the evidence
1) putting kids in lower sets damages their self-esteem -
well so does sharing a classroom with vastly more capable kids.
2) given excellent teaching, Mixed ability is better - What?
aside from the slightly tautological nature of this statement -imagine explaining this to Sir Alan -
candidate - I chose Mixed ability because it was best method when taught by the best 10% of teachers
Sir Alan (squinting) - So what about the other 90% of teachers, what worked best for them then??
Candidate - 'well they did better with setting..but all teachers shoud be in the top 10%'
Sir Alan - 'I can't believe I'm hearing this, I tell you one thing, your maths teacher,' >grimaces< ..'didn't do you any good if you think *all* teachers can be in the top 10%'
Candidate 'ermm no sir Alan, what I meant was..'
Sir Alan 'what you meant was, you mucked up because you chose the approach that was only best for 10% of teachers, and forgot about the majority of them, the other 90%. What are we going to do with the other 90% then, sack them?'
CAndidate (sheepish) 'Erm No Sir Alan, I rather thought we'd just get them to be better...'
Sir Alan ' I've heard enough! You chose to do something that might have been better in an ideal world. Well it's not an ideal world, its the real world, and in this real world, - You're fired.'
Candidate 'thank you Sir Alan'
hangs head, ducks out of the boardroom and retires hoping they don't end up looking too stupid on The Apprentice: You've Been Fired.

[oneopinionatedmother]

ALso - I looked at the study on Rainside -

what they did was totally change the approach taken by an innercity school and get its students to attain at a level equivalent to C grade GCSE.
They measured this against a school with a slightly better intake that didn't change its approach but used setting. This school attained D equivalent.
Rainside used 'complex instruction' mixed ability lessons.

Now - the problems with this study are just mind-blowingly obvious.
You take one school, motivate the teachers with a new approach and you get a better result. It so happens the new method they go in with is Mixed ability.
The other school receives no new impetus, unsuprisingly it plods on as before, whilst the other school excels.

To be a valid and fair study, you would have had to take two schools, and regardless of previous approach, give one a new approach with mixed ability teaching at its core, the other an *equally* new and challenging approach with *setting* at its core. Then the result would mean something.

All this shows otherwise is that if teachers are well-motivated to achieve something, they can achieve it (given the right support etc.).

[Jos Costello]

My children are in primary school (yr 1 and yr 3)and their school starts setting - very flexibly - in Reception. There are four or five sets in each class of about 28 children, teacher and TA input is shared evenly between the sets and there are mixed ability sessions to encourage teambuilding and partnership working. Call me elitist, but I wouldn't have it any other way - my younger daughter is in a group that is off reading schemes, is working on the basics of spelling and punctuation in writing and is doing more challenging sums because that is what they are ready for, meanwhile other groups are still doing phonics drill - to each their own. My older daughter is doing maths in the top set of Yr 4 and is loving it - the school is currently planing to collaborate with the local middle school to ensure adequate material for this group next year. Without setting I dread to think what their school experience would have been like.
And children do move up and down between sets - if handled well, it just works.

[Martin Hanson]

This issue is vitiated by the refusal of journalists and educationalists to acknowledge one of the most important factors in learning - motivation. Perhaps the main reason why so many top graduates do not go into teaching, or leave the profession early, is the stress of coping with uncouth, ill-mannered pupils. These malcontents seriously disrupt the education of the more motivated pupils. No wonder there is so much pressure by parents to secure an academically enriched learning environment for their children.

[Dan Dare]

Motivation from parents is key.

My father never let us come home from boarding school without all our exercise and text books so that part of the school holidays would be taken up by extra lessons with him.

The 1 hour drive back to school was always filled with mental arithmetic, multiplication tables, history questions, geography questions etc etc.

By the time I was 13 and took Common Entrance, my education was at a higher level than my 18 year old children at A level.

The other issue is that the thick should not be allowed to hold back the gifted in the name of "equality".

[Sarah]

I was in a school that setted Maths and English. I was top for English and bottom for Maths. I did well in both, however a memorable experience was my maths teacher (who really was not interested in teaching the "thickies") gleefully told me in the middle of the class that "you will never pass your GCSE" upon which I replied, "that's very defeatist of you considering it's your job to make sure I do" - I was given a rollicking for cheek however he did then improve his attitude and patience towards us all and I passed with a C. My point, setting is good as long as you have a teacher who teaches well and inspires you to want to do your best, lower ability requires a different approach to higher ability.

[Rose]

I was put into a mixed ability English group for my first year at High School and it did me no favours whatsoever. I was in a class with children who could just about read and the teacher was so busy with them that she couldn't set me any extra work - I just read my library book, even though I was often finished before the lesson was halfway through. Needless to say, my parents were furious.

I was always paired with someone less bright to 'help' them and I hated it, because they couldn't keep up with me and it was frustrating for them as well - they resented me as much as I resented them. One of the underachieving set six students was removed from his Science group for bad behaviour and sat between me & a friend in set one. He spent the whole time trying to disrupt our lessons - even trying to look down my shirt to see my bra size. Exactly what I needed whilst I was trying to do my GCSEs.

[Katie]

If the government is so keen on fishing out the bright pupils from state schools to go to university and give them adequate preparation, then surely there is no better way than setting? There is no point in pretending that all children are capable of learning at the same rate and therefore putting them in sets is the ideal way of adapting learning to the pace of the child. My mother teaches RS, a subject which is not set in her school, and is forced to teach children capable of going to Oxbridge alongside children who can barely read or write, and has to produce five different levels of work within a single lesson in order to teach them. Mixed ability teaching is fair neither on the pupils nor the teacher. It is also detrimental to the hard work the goverment has done to increase numbers of stae school pupils in higher education.

[Sandy]

No, it doesn't work. Having completed his Key Stage 2 SATs, my son is counting down the days to leave primary. According to his teachers, he reached the end of the primary curriculum in the middle of Year 5. So, rather than giving him some more challenging work to do, he's been left to fester, bored to tears, but is on hand to assist the teacher with the other children! To top it all, he was allocated to a sink school. So rather than watch him become even more fed up and frustrated, we have no option but to stretch ourselves to the limit financially and go private. What a complete and utter shambles.

[Joe]

If you are comparing two options, you must ask which is better, NOT which is best! As a teacher I found it annoying that this mistake has appeared in several SATs exams and now in The Times.

[RuralObservation]

>

Gaaah. Peer teaching? I hate and detest it even when teaching adults. Why would any student feel anything but abject humiliation being taught by a peer who is deemed 'better'?

And why, as a teacher, would I enjoy watching my hard work being undone, or my job made harder, by seeing low ability students being muddled and confused by untrained 'teachers'?

Having said that, there is a place in learning for good old fashioned 'group activities' - games, explorations etc where knowledge can be shared and skills practised with an element of fun.

'Differentiation', I understand. Unfortunately what that often means is 'Preparing three completely separate lesson plans for each lesson'. Lots more prep for me, hard to administer in the classroom so that students are well-served and rather inefficient, I feel. Of course, I speak as a teacher, not an accountant.

RO

[Imogen Steinberg]

Streaming is better than the alternative, but it’s not a good solution.

For my GCSEs I was constantly stunted between the top two sets for maths, being the brightest in the 2nd (and therefore finding it boring, too slow and easy) and the least able of the top (and consequently getting frustrated and upset that I didn’t pick things up as fast as everyone else). This also meant that I was learning things at different rates the entire time and in different ways by different teachers.

This was probably not helped by the fact that as my state school wanted to improve its A-C results, the best teachers taught the C/D students, then the weakest students (to improve A-E results) and the highest achievers were pretty much left to their own devices (we had 4 teachers in the first two terms of year 11 and in the last only ever useless over-paid supplys, many of whom were not even maths teachers) as we would ‘easily get a B’. Streaming may claim to stretch the brightest students, which I would argue is not always true anyway, but with people like Mr Gibb suggesting that ‘ the better and more experienced teachers should be asked to teach the least able sets’ they will get a worse standard of teaching just because they are brighter. That doesn’t seem fair at all.

[oneopinionatedmother]

go whimsey.

when Bliar banged on about EDUCATION EDUCATION EDUCATION He should have then looked at Implementation
Implementation
Implementation!

tinkering with the system doesn't patch the leaks - fix it! whatever system used is better if teachers stay all year, are well managed by their Head, and rewarded for this.

although looking through the coments below the experiences definitely point in faor of setting

[Mum in Leeds]

I don't believe that mixed ability teaching is a practical option at all. Each child needs a level of input and stimulation in accordance with their needs and ability and it is just not possible to deliver this in a mixed ability class unless it happens to be very small. The trick is to make sure that the children are not pigeonholed at an early age and that they are able to move up and down the sets if their progress dictates it should be so, but without it being disruptive to them. Yes it is not easy for borderline children, at our local high school the teachers actually ask the children and parents which option they want to take (ie top of one set or bottom of another)and stick to that. However it is managed the children all know exactly where they are in the class hierachy and they just regard it as a statement of fact not implied criticism. Surely the important thing is to get the child to achieve the best they can for their level of ability. My only problem with the system comes from the inflexibility of teachers once they have decided on a child's potential - one of my older children was called thicko all the way through junior school and kept of the 'bottom' tables by the teachers, he arrived at high school where he was retested and in year 10 is on target for a* in maths and his three sciences and a's in the rest. Occasionally he still mentions that all the 'bright' children at his junior school are now in lower sets but he is doing well depsite being thick. I guess I have his junior school to thank for that!

[Liz]

I've been on both ends of the spectrum, (excellent at the humanities, terrible at maths and science) and I can honestly say that mixed ability classes are sadistic. The best students are frustrated by the fact that the pace has to be slower (and if they are to be given work separately, why not just put them in another class?) The worst are left with the fact that they are hindering everyone else, and are often too embarassed to ask for help when everyone else seems to understand.

Everyone knows where they are academically, and where everyone else is as well. Streaming does not tell anyone anything they don't already know. The top students do not resent or bully the worst unless they are being held back by them. Being at the bottom of a mixed ability class is far more devastating than everyone being roughly on the same level.

[Josh]

When I was in high school (finished A levels in 2007) I found that setting was by such a long way the best solution. In Maths, for eample, I appreciated being in the top set as it forced me to work hard to keep up. I also found that the subjects where my school did try and include some mixed ability didn't go as well.
In science the school tried to take all of the disruptive and badly behaved children out of the bottom set and spread them out in the top sets. All this led to was massive disruption as they shouted/messed around/bullied people nearby. They didn't benefit and we certainly didn't. That to me was one of the main problems with mixed sets. I'm not suggesting all lower acheivers are disruptive, but many of the disrupters were low acheivers. Mixing the groups just leads to too much disruption, let alone other teaching problems.

Interestingly now I'm at University doing History with Economics, I find that I wish we were in different sets for Mathmatics. As I struggle with some of the more advanced stuff, I find the group I'm with are all better than me. Where I would appreciate going over some things again I don't get the opportunity. So I'm having to keep up with them which is a lot harder.

[tornado]

I agree with the idea to set children by ability.
Everyone has his or her own characters,someone may have some special hobbies,so if teachers could teach students in different ways,students will have better futures.

[hanshuting]

It appears to me that the acquisition of knowledge depends on oneself, not the setting or mixed ability. Usually, we say that the good setting can promote the students to have access to various knowledge, but the fact is that the key in achieving knowledge lies in what you are interested in. If you don't have interests in the maths or something else, it will be useless to have better setting.

Now I'm a student, and I will be a teacher in the future. I think all the students want to get a higher scores. But sometimes the opposite is ture. Compared with others, we will feel anxious. So in some degree, we will benefit from the high level of setting. If I really become a teacher in the future, I will devote myself to the teacing(sounds a little serious).

[yy]

i agree with the idea.

[J]

Setting is best. Mixed ability classes succeed ony in boring the brightest children and intimidating the slowest.

[isabelle]

The aim should be to provide better teachers that inspire and nurture their students. So many are boring and teach without any enthusiasm.

I agree with mixed classes - just provide better teachers please!!

[Whimsey]

"just provide better teachers please"

- er, just provide the teachers then with children who aren't psychos, bullies, brutes, head cases, dysfunctional, emotionally disturbed, etc etc etc.

And provide the teachers with a school management understands that a class room is not a place for a riot, and that good behaviour is the essential requirement for good teacher.

And provide the teachers with a government that supports good teachers not drives them from the profession in despair and breakdown.

[Sam]

Is it just me or is there something sinister about those who drone on about 'bright' kids, as though they are some how superior beings, aka Brave New World, and other children are mere drones destined for a life of servitude. I thought our bankers and politicians etc were meant to be the country's 'brightest and the best' and look where they got us. Remember, all kids are special and most, if not all, have something to offer ..... not just those who have been hot-housed by pushy middle-class parents.

[A. Taylor]

As a high school teacher in the US, I've run across this debate before. The problem is the theory of mixed setting seldom works out in practice. In practice the classes are not smaller and the teacher gets no help with the slower kids. The brighter kids are bored at the slow pace and the slower kids are intimidated by the bright ones. Teachers are not given more time to plan individual lessons so one end or the other loses out.

I teach to the bright kids and hope the slow ones can keep up. We call it "inclusion" here and some of my kids included are very slow or with Aspergers and I have NO aides, training or help of any kind. Inclusion is simply a way for the gov't to justify firing the specialists and aides and it's just the sort of thing that sounds great in academia and fails miserably in an ordinary school setting.

I deeply resent academics who blithely say inclusion will work "if it's done right" and then blame the teachers "for not working hard enough" when it fails. The Boalers of the world need to take responsibility for espousing theories that they say will work in the real world and not blame others when they don't.

[Nick]

Is all "educational theory" in contemporary academia this badly researched? Not a single reference? No cohort studies? Anecdote after anecdote after anecdote? No wonder educational standards are so poor.

[Laura Roberts]

Who do you want to focus on, that's the question. Do you want to focus on the self esteem issues of those not in a top set, or do you want to encourage the abilities of those who are?

I was in the top set for all subjects that were setted. They were my favourite times because we moved along at a speed I liked and classroom discussions were interesting. When I have to think back at times of immense frustration, boredom and consequently poorer personal performance, it's in unsetted classes, where I'd sigh at questions asking what had already been answered, put my head in my hands in agonising impatience as the teacher would go through a point with a lower ability student at a crippling low speed whilst the rest of the class just had to sit there, and literally feel the reins on my brain being pulled back each time I grasped a concept that others hadn't and we all had to wait until they caught up.

We are not all equal; accept it. We as a society at all levels need to stop punishing and holding back the capable until they are at a level which makes the less capable feel better about themselves.

[Dr Nick Ashley]

You mean they aren't streamed? That's plain daft. In mixed ability everyone leans at the pace of the leasdt intelligent child. the smart ones get bored and start to play up. If the pace is picked up the less intelligent can't cope and play up through boredom. A vicious cycle that streaming can improve. At my grammar school each year had An A class, a B Class and a C class based on academic strength.

[Laura Roberts]

Is it just me or is there something sinister about those who drone on about 'bright' kids, as though they are some how superior beings, aka Brave New World, and other children are mere drones

POSTED BY: SAM | 25 MAY 2009 22:59:28

It's just you Sam. If you read "bright kids" but translate that to "superior" inside your brain, that's your choice and your mental translation made with your preconceptions. When I say bright kids, I mean bright kids. If I wanted to say superior, I'd say superior.

[ash]

As a teacher with experience in working both systems, I would say that setting only works if children are in small groups. The ability levels within the group will also vary, you want the teaching to be quite tight with a focus on two or three objectives max. With children having EAL the situaton is very different. The rich from reading is not present today with children of both sexes more interested in PC games.

[penguin]

As a student myself,I'm for the argument that students should be taught all together.Dividing children into different levels will give them a concept of their difference in ability in a very early age.It's harmful to the bingingup of a child.Additionally ,the students who are in the low group will definitely do their job poorer &poorer.So we need a experienced,patient &helpful teacher to teach all the students in different levels all together!
英语0711 35 袁无瑕

[lightbulb]

I'm 16, and have just finished the journeys through primary and secondary education.
When I first saw this article, my immediate thought was, NO mixed ability is NOT the best way.
In primary school, we had ability sets - I was in the top for every subject. This worked very well for me; I was 'stretched', I had fun.
In my secondary grammar school, we don't have ability sets, which is usually fine because everyone is clever. However, in my GCSE French class, there is a large, large gap between the clever and the 'less able' students. In a mixed class, it is impossible for the teacher to teach everyone properly. She spent the whole time concentrating on ensuring that the D and C students could scratch up to a B grade and neglected the A and A* students, because, hey, we wouldn't fail anyway! I went from being an enthusiastic French student to frustration and lack of interest. I'm getting 100% on all the tests, because they are ridiculously easy - but I hate the subject.
I'm sure that had I been in a top ability group, with similarly able students, I would have enjoyed French much more.
Another fault with mixed classes is that too often, the better students are automatically expected to help the others, and to practically teach them instead of pushing themselves.
The only thing that mixed classes do is drag everyone towards the average - something this country seems to be doing a lot of these days.

[Terry]

Setting works but it needs talented teachers for the lower sets. An intellectual teacher can always succeed at the highest levels .Sadly we often put the failing teachers with the failing kids.

[oneopinionatedmother]

re: self esteem. I was taught in mixed ability classes. This did not mean my fellow students thought they were bright, in fact you'd often hear students say 'I'm thick, me' or 'Sir, I can't do this'.

Kids are under no illusions about their own ability, or lack of it.

[Patricia Duncan]

I teach science in mixed ability classes. It's hopeless. How about we have two types of school? One, say a Grammar School for the brightest where they are surrounded by like-minded kids who want to learn and the other , say commercial or technical school for the less able where they too are surrounded by those with similar ability, can learn at their own pace and can develop employability skills? Um..........................

[Dot]

I live in Germany and was shocked to learn recently that in German "Gymnasium" - the equivalent to British grammar schools - children are put into a form group and stay with that same group for all subjects from ages 10 - 18! My boyfriend found this terribly frustrating as the class always has to work at the pace of the slowest learner and nothing is done to encourage the brighter pupils. He really hated school with a passion which is such a shame as he is amazingly clever at maths, physics and IT and could have done much better had he been "stretched". He was just as shocked (and slightly jealous!) to hear that I had been setted in my comprehensive school for maths, science, English and modern languages since the age of 12.

As for what Professor Boaler says: "[The children] need to work at different levels, which is hard for the teacher, but means that achievement levels go up massively." This is the worse thing you can do to kids! Imagine being in a maths class and your best friend gets the harder exercises to do while you have to struggle with the easier ones - nothing is going to make you feel more stupid! I certianly don't think it would encourage me to try and be as good as my best friend. If however you were in a set for those not so good at maths then everyone whould be doing the same exercises and it wouldn't be half as bad!

[Jeremy]

Dot, the tutor group or form class are the students you register with in the morning and afternoon, you don't have the same lessons. In all Grammar schools, which we only have in two counties, streaming occurs by ability.

[Roland]

No one can deny the different self esteem issues whether one is in the top or lower sets. At school we had 6 sets, and i feel this was far from the right number. Being in set 5 (for all of my secondary years) for Maths made me feel so silly compared to all my friends who were in the higher sets, and it never stimulated me to further my studies in Maths. Whilst for English i was in set 3, and even though it may not have been the top, i felt i was being pushed and asked to work harder to achieve higher grades. If there are sets, there should be less.

[Elaine]

In my experience of teaching, having kids of mixed abilities in a class is a nightmare for both children and teachers. You don't have the time to devote to the slower ones and quicker kids get bored, and often are quick to tease those who are stuggling and resent that you are giving the strugglers the most attention. Maybe Boaler is good at Maths and maybe she's good at devising ways to shove it down kids throats but how much does she actually know about children and their psycholological and mental needs? Not much I'd guess.

[nick shires]

Those who voice an educational ideas should first spend time putting it into practice in an challenging school to a range of classes whilst teaching a full timetable etc. for a whole year. I wonder how many educational ideas would survive...

[Ghoti]

I believe in a middle position.

For academic (theory based) subjects, setting is far better than mixed ability teaching. There is no reasonable way for a teacher to cater to both the students who struggle with simultaneous equations and those who instinctively "get" calculus at the same time. As others have mentioned, if Child X attempts to match Child Y's learning speed it will likely become frustrated either with Child Y, itself, the subject or education in general.

But, for creative or social subjects like Art, I feel it is both possible and beneficial to include students of variable ability (attitude is a seperate question). I found such classes to be extremely successful at integrating children from the entire spectrum of educational attainment - profoundly gifted to profoundly disabled - into a functioning community, and spreading genuine acceptance rather than tolerance between students.

I have been in successful and failing mixed ability classes, and successful and failing set classes. Neither method is infalliable or doomed to fail.

And "SAM", in several of the schools I attended very bright pupils were included in the Special Education Program because of the challenges involved in gifted education. We are not better people than other students, but we are different. We deserve to have our educational needs met just as much as every other student, and this sometimes means seperate tuition.

[Crna Legija]

I was so bad at maths that each year I was in a lower set. I plunged through the league, as if I was playing for Bradford!

[Jane]

I went to a rubbish mixed comp which refused to set most of my subjects according to ability and, through immense hard work on my part and the support of my parents, managed to rise above my AWFUL education and make it to Oxford. In my mixed ability maths class of 30+ pupils, we were sat in twos (smart/less able) and the more intelligent pupil was expected to help the less able one with their work. So I spent the good part of my 2 years helping the student next to me attain their 'D' grade (taking a completely different paper from myself), while I aimed at an A*. I think it's only a popular idea amongst some teachers because no one wants to teach the most badly behaved set, which is usually the bottom one! At oxford, of the 55% of students who went to state schools, nearly all of them went to a handful of grammar schools across the country (in my whole college I can only think of about 4 students who went to a comprehensive, which is shocking given that 90% of Britain's children attend them). This surely indicates that it is detrimental to teach intelligent students in large mixed-ability classes.

[David]

How could mixed ability be helpful? The only reason people will support it is for some politically correct "every child is equal" reason, even though some children are blatantly more intelligent.

Anyway, it's not like lower sets are "failures". Those children need extra support with their learning, and the bright kids need stretched. Streaming suits that perfectly.

Don't hold the bright kids back because of some semi-Marxist view. We've already got rid of the grammar schools, which was an awful decision.

[Itxaso]

every kid is different, every kid have different needs, every kid have different abilities and every kid have different failures. Keeping those in mind, and knowing how to get the best out of all of the them is the teacher's task. Hard, but true. This is the challenge!

[Rob]

Mixed ability teaching is the single most destructive set up ever. There are four main reasons.

First, it is inefficient. The teacher needs to prepare for and teach three different abilities, the majority in the middle, extension work for the bright and something for the dim. Most do not manage this, especially if the range of ability is very wide.

Second, no child gets the optimum education for him/her. The teachers attention is dissipated throughout the class so any one groups education is compromised.

Third, because the whole class must remain at a broadly similar level for the year, the teacher nor the school can have one part of it streaking ahead or another falling behind the average must be lower than it could be. This is the main reason for falling standards and for exams being simplified or else pass rates would have fallen, and that would not do.

Fourth, to spend one's education in a class where almost all can do everything better, faster and easier than you must be the most demoralising experience and the key reason why so many low ability children drop our and disrupt things.

Mixed ability teaching is the main reason why standards have fallen and exams to fall with them. Also the key advantage of independent schools over state schools. The independents do not do mixed ability. As in nature, independent schools have a few for the super bright, a few for the super dim and most in the middle where most of us are. That, to me is the ideal set up.

Selection works because then all children will get an education that is tailored for him whihc must be more efficient.

Mixed ability is premised on the dogma that all can be made the same, that ability differences are really class differences. This is nonsense. We are all born different in ability and character and for as long as people marry and raise children as they wish they will create different experiences for them so there is nothing that can be done about differences except for nature to take its course.

[Paul]

I spent my first three years of Secondary education at a Comprehensive. I never recovered!
Thank you ,you 60's Liberal Idealists, hope you are happy!

[Helen]

I think that setting works for some subjects and not others. I went to a grammar school and we were still set into 4 sets for maths which I felt worked well. The teachers were able to target the work at our specific level and there was no feeling of 'superiority' of the top groups over the lower groups. However I don't think that setting is beneficial for subjects such as languages because every pupil can speak and write at their own specific level and less able pupils can learn from hearing the more advanced vocabulary and grammar structures used by the more able pupils.

[Jones]

The reason it works in Japan and Finland is because children want to get ahead. Also, Japan has a huge 'juko' industry - schools that children go to after schools to cram stuff into them that they've not been able to do at home. That's why they need not split children into sets.

I went to a comprehensive where, for some subjects such as English and Maths, we were split into 6 sets. Worked perfectly fine. The children who didn't care about getting ahead or passing an exam could languish in a lower set together. Some pupils were proud to get 0% in their exams. Why teach them along with more ambitious pupils?

[Jones]

I also used to teach English as a foreign language to business people. Even in such cases, they are given a test to see what level they are and then they are put into different groups and taught to that level.

The only time this was not done was with a multinational computing company that thought it could save money by putting the very good and the very low level together. It was worse than useless. I felt as though I was standing on two horses going in different directions.

Money out of the window.

[Chris Cunningham]

when I was at a mixed ability primary school I was labelled as "a bit slow" and disinterested. It turns out I was bored. Once I moved upwards to a comprehensive where many of the subjects were streamed and setted I did very well. Eventually I achieved 10 O levels at grade A and 4 A levels. I have a BSc Honours degree in Physics.

The reality is that liberals in the 60s and 70s didn't like the idea that in life some poeple are just better than others. They saw streaming and setting as "elitist" and so tried to wipe it out with "mixed ability teaching".

SOme people fail, some succeed. That's life.

What a shock the real world must be to today's teenagers when they leave school.

[Dectora]

If Professor Boaler were to reflect on the OECD PISA analysis of perfomance in Finland she would realise that this is the triumph of mediocrity; almost no failures, a huge bunch of 14 year olds in the middle and very few high achievers.
I have only had the experience of teaching mixed ability adults with the OU. I would give a talk which I thought would interest veryone in my tuorial group at some level, but I also allowed students to ring me at home, so that the weaker students could raise difficulties. I also gave one extra class in a student's home, so that there could be more informal questioning from my group. On top of all this OU tutors were supposed to give a massive amount of feedback on essays marked. Very different from teaching mixed ability children.

[Dectora]

Professor Boaler: if 'research has shown' that all children do better in mixed ability groups could you please cite the research. I'm used to documentation to support confident assertions.

[Lisa]

As a parent of two children with wildly differing academic styles, I *LOVE* streaming! My high-flying daughter would be bored to tears in a mixed ability group while my son, who needs a lot more coaching and support, would be left behind.

I recently spent a day with year 1 & 2, helping with their science week on a topic related to my job. I had just 6 children at a time. In one class, my groups were done alphabetically. Each set therefore had the full range of abilities from the one who just could not 'get' it at all, to the one who was asking such insightful questions that they quite took my breath away. In the other class, I was given the numeracy sets - streamed by ability. Guess which groups were the easiest to work with? Guess which groups each gained the most out of the experience... because we could all work through it together?

[jasper]

Setting and streaming did not "go out of fashion". It was abandoned because in city schools the upper sets were too white and the lower sets too black.

[Wiw]

I passed my 11+ in Northern Ireland with an A, and chose to go to an all ability integrated school. I passed my GCSEs and A Levels with straight As, went to a top 10 university and graduated last year with a first class degree. My teachers at secondary school were passionate, talented and patient, taught small classes of under twenty pupils, and were part of a tight community with a shared ethos of all pupils learning together. It wasn't a private school, and pupils traveled for miles to attend it. I wish schools like this were an option for everybody.

[Alison]

i was in set 3 of 4 for O level maths; we were taught properly, and appropriately for our ability. Got an A grade. Setting works.

[Pati]

Mixed ability classes may benefit those who aren't as fast, as they will have the opportunity to work with the faster ones and gain an insight into their thoughts and working style, including a lot of help! But for the ones that are of a better ability, how will this method enable them to further build their own knowledge and skills? They need to be challenged in order to improve. They need poeple of same capabilty to learn off.

I personally found it very annoying when i was put into a mixed ability class. It slowed me down way too much, I got dead bored in class and no offence, but sometimes I would much appreciate it if I could just, for once, focus on my own work, finish it and move on the next task without ALWAYS being interupted for help by the girl next to me. :(

I worked much better and most importantly I achieved far more in set ability classes, I didn't have around for others to finish, for the teachers to come round and help me or set me another task. Not to mention I enjoyed working with others a lot more. I'd have someone who was able to help me and vice versa. We also competed with eachother, see who could finish first, who had the most correct answers etc, which, in my opionion, is a far more exciting and effective approach to learning.

[0720302219]

Personally speaking, I am in favor of mixed ability teaching. The way of classification is simply an examination. So it is completely unfair to the students who are out of state during the exam. If setting and streaming should be used , those children in the bottom sets would feel themselves stupid, and be prone to give up learning, which is extremely bad for children’s both physical and mental health. On the contrary, mixed ability teaching can be a good approach for children to communicate and help each other. Confronted with the least able children, teachers would have less enthusiasm for teaching. In a word, it is unreasonable to divide children into different levels.

[Karen]

All the negative comments about teaching mixed ability academic subjects are absolutely right. Streaming works. But Grammar schools attract the best, most experienced teachers and leave the other (vast majority of) schools to rot - I never recovered either.

[wangshanshan]

As a college school student,I know all kinds of learning methods.However,every child is different.So,when they are learning ,they need different ways to satisfy their demands.
At the same time,the most important thing is that we should foster the interest of the children.They'd better work hard and think more by themselves.

[Notimpressed]

Disruptive pupils, teachers overloaded with too many classes from ages 11 to 18 and poor primary preparation makes mixed ability teaching unworkable. All the latest technology cannot make up for the above.