To Set Or Not To Set, That Is The Question

There has been a lot of debate on social media recently, particularly from mathematics teachers, about the pros and cons of setting classes by ability for their subject. I have weighed in a little but thought I'd get my thoughts down in writing, from the point of view of someone who has almost exclusively taught in schools that set, but has some experience of mixed ability.

Self-Esteem Issues With Setting
There's no denying that setting can have a negative (for those in bottom sets) or positive (for those in top sets) impact on self-esteem. This is certainly not desirable and however a school, department or whatever dress up sets, the students invariably work out where they stand in the ability "league table", which is ultimately what setting is doing, and this can affect their self-esteem. However, in a mixed ability class there will be some who understand the work very quickly and some who don't; surely this also has an affect on self-esteem too. To be the one or ones who always need extra help whilst seeing classmates race ahead must be equally as demoralising as being in the bottom set.

Perceptions of Setting
"Being in the bottom set means that you only cover certain stuff and can only achieve certain exam grades." Whilst this doesn't have to be true, it is the common belief of many students, parents and teachers. This, in my view, is the most damning thing about setting, but it is entirely down to perceptions, not the setting itself. The key to successful (if you can call it that) is that the sets are fluid and can change every half term on the basis of an assessment. This should ensure that the set are all starting at approximately the same point and can progress accordingly, allowing the teacher to target the learning and progression more accurately. Parents often like setting, especially when their child is in the top set, although possibly not so much when their child is in the bottom set. What people (students and parents) don't like about sets is that they can often be stuck for a relatively long time in an inappropriate set; this is why regular assessment and fluidity between sets is crucial. The other thing that is key is that there should be no ceiling on the learning and material on offer to any set. The bottom set should be able to access the same material as the top set if they can manage it. This is not to say that one should introduce differential calculus to bottom set Year 7 but don't write it off if their progress merits it! You will often hear the slightly cheesy phrase "glass ceiling" and for want of a better term, this should be the aim for everyone. Scaffolding "trickier" topics is the job of the teacher to enable all to reach a similar point by the end.

Perceptions of Mixed Ability
Those who believe in mixed ability are, in my experience, pretty vociferous about it. My experience of it was reasonably painful in the early part of my teaching career. At that stage of my career I did exactly what I was told as I knew no better or were yet to form an opinion, but I had to essentially produce three lesson for one to challenge all students in the class. With experience I wouldn't do it this way again but the issue remains similar if not the same: some students will fly with the work whilst some will not go quite so quickly. Keeping everyone challenged is the main issue. Parents also don't understand mixed ability so well, wondering why their "genius" is in a class with "non-geniuses". This can be explained and ultimately the parents should accept the school/teachers' judgement but increasingly parents are becoming bolder and are being encouraged to question that judgement by media/politicians. The positive is that everyone is exposed to every part of the curriculum, without fail, which is great as long as everyone understands it and doesn't feel left behind.

So Which Is Better?
Neither is the short answer to that question. Every system of placing children into classes will have a positive effect on some and a negative effect on others. There are classroom resources that cater for all systems but none are perfect. The key is that in whichever system is employed there shouldn't be a limit on progress imposed; the teacher's job is to ensure that all students reach their potential (before anyone says anything, no-one can reach beyond their potential).

Sacked Them All!

Michael Gove continues to bait the teaching profession by announcing that headteachers can sack incompetent teachers far faster, in fact within about a term.

See the article here!

In essence I have absolutely no problem with this new policy, but there will be a major problem with it, and it's a problem that many others have pointed out in various chatrooms and forums. That problem is that a number of heads will use the new powers to get rid of people they don't like rather than only those who are poor teachers. Many cases will end up being personality issues rather than teaching issues, and that is simply wrong.

Gove has opened the door for headteachers by suggesting that there are loads of poor teachers out there, and this carrot will be too tempting for many heads. The previous system encouraged heads to write good references for poor teachers to "move them on", and this clearly needed addressing. Genuinely poor teachers need to be removed from the profession.

The only probelm is the judgements upon whether a teacher is capable or not are based on the following:

• Results - these are affected by both the ability of the teacher to get the information across, but also on the willingness of the students in front of them to learn. Target grades that should be hit by the class are often "challenging" in the first place and set in concrete, meaning that if a child suddenly has a change in attitude for the worse, the teacher will get it in the neck through no fault of their own.
• Observations by senior management - these are totally subjective in that unless a lesson is completely awful, which would be obvious to anyone, the judgement could range from "outstanding" to "satisfactory" depending on the perconceived ideas of the observer.

All teachers have suffered from the first issue - teenagers are an unpredictable bunch (assuming that you teach in secondary schools) and therefore often surprise their teachers with their ability to self-destruct and throw away any potential they may have.

The second issue affects more teachers than you may think. It won't be a problem for those teachers who bow to every request from their head without question, but a teacher who dares to have an opinion will certainly have suffered from senior staff trying to "get their own back". It may sound petty (and actually, it is petty) but it definitely happens, presumably to remind the teacher who's in charge. I get told after every lesson observation by one particular member of senior staff at my school that essentially my character in general is a major issue. I presume that I will therefore be fairly near the top of the list for this implementation of this new policy at our school, not because I am rubbish, but because I don't teach like the automaton automaton the senior member of staff clearly craves.

What you often find is that the senior manager forgets their own time in the classroom (if they ever spent any), when they had very little power to discipline and they taught 5 lessons per day rather than 5 lessons per year, if as much as that. I had one deputy head say to me during feedback once, "you don't teach like me", to which I replied "you are absolutely right, I never want to teach like you, I don't even like you if that's all you can come up with by way of feedback." I obviously don't help myself, but bullies like this need tackling, not cowering in front of.

It's similar stories like this that have led to Gove's policy being described by teachers and unions as "a bully's charter". Along with the pensions debate plus the news that everyone will have to work until they are 105 (or whatever), teachers are feeling pretty got at currently. On top of this political drive to demoralise teachers, the public will also throw in their tuppence-worth. Popular soaps create new characters who are teachers (they like to have their fingers on the pulse these shows), with these new characters doing something abhorent, giving the public more ammunition to have a go at the profession. It sounds silly, but it's what happens I'm sorry to say because soaps are real life to some sections of the general public.

There is also the problem that having got rid of these apparently poor teachers, they need replacing with (presumably) better teachers. Where are these better teachers going to come from? I have been at schools where perfectly good teachers have been "moved on" only to be replaced by imcompetance. The grass is not always greener. Some subjects (maths, science and ICT spring to mind) struggle for numbers, both good and bad.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: these politicians really do have no idea.