My twin daughters in Y7 have already been put into sets for maths – one has ended up in set 1 the other in set 2. This has caused some heated debate already! There is a theory from a US educationalist(?) that by “labelling” kids at such a young age a self fulfilling prophecy takes place which means the child in set 2 for example will never does as well in that subject as the child in set 1, as they won’t be pushed as much.

Obviously I will be discussing it with the school but does anyone have any direct experience of this, good or bad?

Thanks, James

Speak to teachers and they’ll tell you that it’s sometimes easier for kids to learn at a pace with which they are comfortable but that they all mostly get there in the end. Putting a child in with “brighter” peers can see them struggle to keep up.

Personally, I’ve seen kids in my daughters classes change “sets” over the years, some moving up, some moving down, so it doesn’t appear to set anything in stone.

It is the great lie of comprehensive education. The selection of aspiration is internal to the school. Ask them how many kids change their set either at the end of term or at the start of the year.

It is also a sign of lazy teaching as the lesson plans have to plan for a narrower range of ability.

You could ask which set gets the best teacher as well, the one that needs the additional work, or the “top” set?

When I were lad…..

All teachers taught all sets (over a range of years)
Some of the lower ones did not progress to the tougher modules etc.
It meant the brighter pupils could be challenged more without leaving others behind or getting bored waiting for others to keep up.
The top set required as much work as the lower ones.

The idea that we should have a room with people learning multiple streams at different speeds seems a waste and only there to keep people happy who want everyone to be the same.

Are they definitely sets? We had some subjects at school where sets 1 and 2 were equal ability wise, just timetabled differently.

Yes definitely sets – the Set 1 teacher has already told them that they are expected to get A* at GCSE!

Its easy.One has proved better at Maths. they will be taught to their ability. Screw up and they drop. Do well and they move up. Until they reach the point where the curriculum is geared for a certain exam (which sadly doesn’t happen today) it will be irrelevant. Fuss over nothing. It’s Y7 not Oxbridge! 😆

I would have thought that they will be taught at a speed and challenge more suited to their ability but will all be taught the same syllabus so as not to disadvantage them at later stages.

Do well go up, not so well go down.

I made a guest appearance in set 3 at one stage and was a set 2 stalwart. 14 years later I was discussing with Bath the potential of a Mathematical Modelling PhD.

Having sat through both streamed and non-streamed classes at school, I’d wholly prefer the former. The latter saw the teachers spending the bulk of their time trying to stop the mouth breathers from lighting the gas taps, whilst we were left to work amongst ourselves. Mixed ability classes are a terrible idea. On the upside for the OP, at my school at least there was little difference between the top two sets in either student or teacher ability from what I remember.

Good luck ‘having a word’ without looking like a bitter loon whose child isn’t the genius offspring your genes demanded, though. (Not suggesting that’s what you actually think, but it’s probably how you’d come across.) At best, if you start demanding that they’re in the same class, the brighter one will be dropped.

Setting – the subject of plenty of controversy!! I really would not worry. FWIW, both my sons were good but not outstanding at maths. Both ended up near the top of set 2 rather than the bottom of set 1 but experienced both. They found the pace and style of teaching suited them and preferable to set 1 where teacher assumed they knew things and pushed them beyond the syllabus. Both did well in exams. Far better for them to be taught in the set that best suits there ability.The rest is down to teachers’ styles and ability.

It is the great lie of comprehensive education. The selection of aspiration is internal to the school.

When I was at school there was a mixture of set and non-set lessons. Disregarding pretend subjects like RE, the non-streamed lessons were a waste of time.

There’s no reason why your daughter shouldn’t move to set 1 if she demonstrates the aptitude (and I suspect streaming is far more to do with aptitude than sheer talent). It’s only year 7, after all.

Having experienced a comprehensive education (in a fairly normal-poor town) in the 80s/90s, we were separated into 2 broad ‘bands’ in the First Year. There were a fair number of nutters in my ‘upper band’ class at this point and it could be very disruptive.

In subsequent years the bands were re-arranged a little (some pupils moving up or down) and the more academic lessons were increasingly ‘setted’ by ability. This seemed far better for the medium and higher ability pupils. The lower band/sets appeared to be fairly chaotic. 20 years later, I’m not sure what the levels of chaos would be like in comparison….

In my view, mixing all abilities would have been a Bad thing:

The most able pupils may have been relatively unaffected, although the course material covered would have been reduced and motivation may have fallen as a result of lack of teaching attention -The able pupils with affluent/keen parents would have sought out extra lessons/tuition to compensate.

To be quite honest, the lowest ability pupils would have been unlikely to benefit (-from whatever initiative was used to enthuse them about maths, science, history, languages etc.)

I believe that the medium ability pupils would have suffered most.

Kids have different abilities and are better served learning in groups of similar ability.

I wouldn’t stress things too much, the most important thing at this stage is for them to learn good educational habits and give of their best.

I year 7 they’ll tend to be all ‘streamed’ by just sittign at different tables durign Maths and English.

It means the teacher can set a table a piece of work and know that the pupils ont hat table will all be workign ont he same thing and can help each other when not directly supervised.

tbh, the ones most likely to get the teachers time will be the ones not in set 1…

It is the great lie of comprehensive education. The selection of aspiration is internal to the school .

Sorry you lost, me a lie[what is?] and the selection of aspiration – what exactly are you trying to say/claim?

Ask them how many kids change their set either at the end of term or at the start of the year.

Is this so we can see how good the teachers are at putting people into the right set?Perhaps if they change sets it is a sign it works because they have managed to “upskill ” them enough to progress. What do you expect it to prove?

It is also a sign of lazy teaching as the lesson plans have to plan for a narrower range of ability.

What planning a lesson matched to the ability of the class is lazy 😯
You are right we should be teaching people stuff that is beyond their ability to comprehend and understand lest the teacher be labelled lazy-Good news set 4 today Steven Hawkins is in to teach you Astro Physics so keep up wont you 🙄

You could ask which set gets the best teacher as well, the one that needs the additional work, or the “top” set?

How exatly are you measuring best here ?

AS THM notes it is a good thing generally and movement can occur if you have the ability

Different kids have different abilities, I was in the top set for Maths and we had all sorts of famous lecturers / mathematicians come and teach us advanced off-topic stuff*, which would have been lost on the lower sets.

* benefit of living in Cambridge, lot’s of famous academics on hand to pop in inspire us about relativity etc….

too late to edit – I was wrong, year 7 is separate classes.

Speak to teachers and they’ll tell you that it’s sometimes easier for kids to learn at a pace with which they are comfortable but that they all mostly get there in the end. Putting a child in with “brighter” peers can see them struggle to keep up.

Personally, I’ve seen kids in my daughters classes change “sets” over the years, some moving up, some moving down, so it doesn’t appear to set anything in stone.
+1

I was in bottom set for maths, but the people in that class were a bunch of morons so i worked hard for a few weeks and completed the book and ended up being moved up a set. Ended up in a set with all my mates…spent the rest of the year messing about.

Hasn’t really done me any harm as such, went to uni at 21, 15 years later I’m in a VP level job as head of a department in banking IT.

Still shit at maths though.

Not sure your kids are going to be disadvantaged much by being in the 1st and 2nd sets. You say you’re goig to ‘have a word’ with the school, have you wondered whether the one in set 2 just isn’t as bright as the other one?

Thanks for all the input.

Apologies if it came across that I was going to “confront” the school about this.

More curious to see what peoples experiences were, both for themselves and their kids.

Y7 does seem a bit early to me to be streaming but I guess I just need to understand the process for moving between sets a little better.

Yr 7 streaming tends to be based on pre-KS3 data obtained from the primary feeder schools, although there will be a number of academic tools (GOAL Online, Rapid English etc) used by the staff at secondary level to ascertain ‘spikes’ in the data. There are a number of issues around the concept of streaming – I’m part of a task-group at UCL looking at streaming and its pros/cons on a micro (individual), meso (year group) and macro (school) level, but as yet there is very little to suggest that the Korean/Scandanavian models that do not involve streaming could be superseded.

I wouldn’t worry. The real work begins at the end of Yr 8. Your ladies will be fine.

The issue isn’t the set; have a word with the school and ask them how the set will allow your child to make the expected progress and how they will measure it?

MHS James? If so, go and have a chat. New’ish head (Dr) is very approachable as are heads of years and depts.
The place is on the up. Driven by people with a passion for teaching.
Emily is year 11. Top sets in most since year 7 but oddly bottom set for Maths.
She’s still in top for most subjects (predicted B*, A and A*) and mid set for maths.
We’ve have loads of support from the school.

bullheart – Member
There are a number of issues around the concept of streaming – I’m part of a task-group at UCL looking at streaming and its pros/cons on a micro (individual), meso (year group) and macro (school) level, but as yet there is very little to suggest that the Korean/Scandanavian models that do not involve streaming could be superseded.

Well, I’m very glad that my English school, with the pupils I shared it with at the time, wasn’t located in Scandinavia or Korea….

Aye – the school run would have been a challenge.

Tell them the TTFU and get on with it.

Yr 7 streaming tends to be based on pre-KS3 data obtained from the primary feeder schools, although there will be a number of academic tools (GOAL Online, Rapid English etc)

My son’s started year 7 with “an online assessment provided by the Curriculum Evaluation and Management Centre based at the University of Durham” to produce target grades for his work towards GCSE. That said, they don’t use it to stream (apparently they “don’t need to stream” due to being academically selective for entry).

Not sure whether that (not streaming) is just for now, or whether they stream in later years, from my memories of school there were kids who were top performers at age eleven but performed much more poorly later on, and vice versa.

Back in 1997 when we did our GCSE’s the lower maths set were automatically given the lower band GCSE papers making it almost impossible to get a C. (And absolutely impossible to get A*-B). I had my friend bypass the teacher and get the exam officer to enter him for the higher paper. He got a B which undoubtedly helped with his range of thform/university/job choices.

Don’t trust the streaming.

What Bullheart said.
setting at KS3 is based on performance in KS2. Target grades for GCSEare based on the same data. This seems a bit crazy to me. Streaming from year 7 means that some subjects could be off limits come a-level.
In your case if the school is quite large set one and two are going to be much the same and could even be entirely the same. Check the school will move kids as and when necessary but as your kids are going to be i the top stream it doesnt seem to be a massive worry.

The flaw with KS2 data streaming is that Primary teaching staff are pressured gently guiding into potentially accelerating student levels in order to retain a competitive edge in a difficult market area. Trying to get kids through the door is based upon reputation on the whole, although innovative primary HT’s are prepared to be both transparent and take risks to develop a long-standing diverse and differentiated curriculum.

Aye – the school run would have been a challenge.

Walking Bus! Walking Bus!

MHS James? If so, go and have a chat. New’ish head (Dr) is very approachable as are heads of years and depts.
The place is on the up. Driven by people with a passion for teaching.
Emily is year 11. Top sets in most since year 7 but oddly bottom set for Maths.
She’s still in top for most subjects (predicted B*, A and A*) and mid set for maths.
We’ve have loads of support from the school.

Hi Steve yes it’s MHS