TO SET OR NOT TO SET? THAT IS THE QUESTION!
So, I walked
into my local restaurant where I regularly eat, but this time, instead of being
offered a menu, I was simply led to my usual table in a quiet corner. ‘There
you are Mrs. D, make yourself comfortable and we’ll bring you your meal – the
usual vegetarian option, you’ll be pleased to know and not too many potatoes –
just the way you like it, madam. Now
enjoy a glass of your favourite red.’
Very nice, you might think, and how thoughtful that the staff had taken
note of my preferences. Except they
didn’t know that I was driving and would have preferred mineral water, had
become vitamin B deficient, so had reintroduced meat into my diet, added to
which, not having eaten all day, I was ravenous! How were they to know that
behind the scenes my personal landscape was changing? After all, I’d been
coming here for years…
And isn’t this the problem with setting? Teachers and pupils make presumptions about pupils’ potential based on their previous performance. Labelling the individual as ‘Bottom Set’ material, (no amount of creative terminology – colour coding or alphabet reversal – can disguise the real meaning of the set you’re assigned to) is detrimental to a student’s self-belief, motivation and expectation. Additionally, after several years in the same set, a pupil has either an inflated sense of their own ability, having always been in ‘Top Set’ or a disaffected resignation to existing at the bottom of the academic pile. Movement between sets, I hear you ask? It doesn’t have to be a life sentence, does it?
True in theory, but the reality is that movement between sets is problematic: often the logistics of class sizes force an uncomfortable exchange of moving a pupil down to allow for another’s advancement up the tiers, not to mention the even more uncomfortable ‘exchange’ with parents/ carers. But isn’t it all about survival of the ablest and meritocracy – a life lesson in well- earned reward? In fact, according to research attached to the EEF (Education Endowment Foundation, Nov 2018), ‘some studies …conclude that grouping pupils on the basis of attainment [is] discouraging the belief that their attainment can be improved through effort.’
Then why not choose to exemplify a better system in which all individuals are valued and dignified with a more equal and open-minded approach to life and learning. After all, these are young people with most of their learning potential still unlocked. You’ve probably discerned by now that I am an advocate of inclusive, mixed ability classes. Surprisingly, I am not a lone voice in the educational wilderness…
Dr. Becky Taylor from the Institute of Education, in collaboration with academics from Queen’s University, Belfast, published research in 2017 acknowledging that ‘Mixed attainment grouping is widely seen as difficult, and unconventional, and therefore risky.’ However, this attitude is somewhat blinkered, as it ignores growing evidence which indicates that: ‘It is student outcomes which suffer as a result of this fear, while research suggests outcomes might be improved (at least for low attainers) by mixed attainment grouping.’
It was back in 2014 that Emma, our intrepid HoD, supported the then radical proposal to abolish setting in the English Department at our non-selective independent school. Happy hitherto branded low-attainers, hello sceptical top set parents.
And isn’t this the problem with setting? Teachers and pupils make presumptions about pupils’ potential based on their previous performance. Labelling the individual as ‘Bottom Set’ material, (no amount of creative terminology – colour coding or alphabet reversal – can disguise the real meaning of the set you’re assigned to) is detrimental to a student’s self-belief, motivation and expectation. Additionally, after several years in the same set, a pupil has either an inflated sense of their own ability, having always been in ‘Top Set’ or a disaffected resignation to existing at the bottom of the academic pile. Movement between sets, I hear you ask? It doesn’t have to be a life sentence, does it?
True in theory, but the reality is that movement between sets is problematic: often the logistics of class sizes force an uncomfortable exchange of moving a pupil down to allow for another’s advancement up the tiers, not to mention the even more uncomfortable ‘exchange’ with parents/ carers. But isn’t it all about survival of the ablest and meritocracy – a life lesson in well- earned reward? In fact, according to research attached to the EEF (Education Endowment Foundation, Nov 2018), ‘some studies …conclude that grouping pupils on the basis of attainment [is] discouraging the belief that their attainment can be improved through effort.’
Then why not choose to exemplify a better system in which all individuals are valued and dignified with a more equal and open-minded approach to life and learning. After all, these are young people with most of their learning potential still unlocked. You’ve probably discerned by now that I am an advocate of inclusive, mixed ability classes. Surprisingly, I am not a lone voice in the educational wilderness…
Dr. Becky Taylor from the Institute of Education, in collaboration with academics from Queen’s University, Belfast, published research in 2017 acknowledging that ‘Mixed attainment grouping is widely seen as difficult, and unconventional, and therefore risky.’ However, this attitude is somewhat blinkered, as it ignores growing evidence which indicates that: ‘It is student outcomes which suffer as a result of this fear, while research suggests outcomes might be improved (at least for low attainers) by mixed attainment grouping.’
It was back in 2014 that Emma, our intrepid HoD, supported the then radical proposal to abolish setting in the English Department at our non-selective independent school. Happy hitherto branded low-attainers, hello sceptical top set parents.
Comments
Post a Comment