The mixed vs set ability debate is not a new one. It has gone round the houses, done its laps and the research and general consensus seem to have settled quite firmly in favour of blended classes. So why write about it now? 
Mainly because I (like many on the other side of the debate) was completely and utterly against the introduction of mixed ability classes when it was first discussed in our department. Many of the titular misconceptions were my own but having now researched, taught the classes and reaped the benefits fully mixed sets bring, I have deserted post and I am firmly in the mixed ability camp. Here’s what I thought versus what I found:
1. Differentiation and Challenge is too difficult
For context, our previous configuration was to have two top sets on each side of the year with rest in mixed classes, so from my prior experience, going fully mixed would have been extra work for the teachers while taking away specific focus on learners’ needs. But how wrong I was! My anti-mixed stance was very much based on the labour-intensive, inefficient differentiation I was doing at the time. Three worksheets per group, sentence starters for the low ability, a middling activity the entire lesson was focussed on and more technical terms those with higher targets would be able to use to tick the “sophisticated” boxes on the mark schemes. I was essentially trying to teach three lessons simultaneously. And the thought of applying this to a larger breadth of abilities, all while answering different questions arising from different worksheets, making sure students were picking work appropriate for them and doing it correctly, was overwhelming. But I find teaching to the top of mixed ability classes and scaffolding down works so well and breeds a culture of high expectations and broken glass ceilings in my classroom. By using Stepping Stones where the main task is the ‘challenge’ and the differentiated task is both a scaffolded task but also a way to help students of all abilities reach that main task, all students are able to potentially access the more difficult content. The main task is always challenging and open enough that there is no “I’ve finished, Miss” in the fraction of the time given for it and I’m not scrambling to find extra work that sufficiently boosts learning without being repetitive. I find students of all abilities will be on either of the tasks and I rarely have to push students onto more difficult work.
2. The exploratory discussions will dissolve
There is no greater joy than that of an English teacher where the students are engaging with the themes and ideas in a piece of literature, are getting into the grit and debating the merits, ideas and views in it. And while this happens at all levels, there is a concern that having these conversations in a mixed setting will leave some behind or it will lose its natural flow because of an air of snobbery and derision. Perhaps there will be an obvious hierarchy of commenters and the less confident who really do have valuable contributions to make, will disappear into the background. But English is about conversations, perspectives and opinions, and any kind of segregation will automatically limit the breadth of these. Now, I am not suggesting for a minute that students of x ability will have x opinion but surely capping a classroom off to these discussions cannot be a good thing? Plus research has shown us that students from different genders, socio-economic and ethnic backgrounds, will statistically find themselves more likely to be in certain sets no matter how much strategizing is done through filtering columns in SIMs. So the moment you are discussing themes, ideas, characters or reactions, you are already limiting the potential diversity in perspectives brought to that discussion and that is doing a disservice to both the subject and the students. And while there can be an element of Student x “always makes the clever comments” or “knows the right answer” among students, the blend of characters, attainments and viewpoints has brought a refreshing dynamism to the discussions in class and most certainly a variety of vocabularies to them.
3. Students of “higher abilities” will be disadvantaged
It has been said that mixed ability classes can burden higher ability students with the task of dragging up the progress of those weaker than them - to the detriment of their own learning. But my experience couldn’t be further from this: it honestly does go both ways. I’ve found that the students with higher targets can often be so wrapped up in the specifics and the fear of getting it wrong, they get lost in the story. I often find that when I question things about writer’s ideas, morals, purposes, development and overall takeaways, the hands shooting up in my classroom belong to those with the lower target grades whereas these questions were greeted with tumbleweed silence in my top sets. One of my students, who is weakest on paper (reading age, CATs, literacy etc) carries the entire class with her grasp of characterisation, the messages portrayed in texts and the reasons for their portrayal. And while she may not always get it right, I will say with all certainty, that everyone benefits from her contributions! Conversely the details and technicalities that she and other lower-attaining students may miss, get shared and discussed as well. Overall, it is win-win for everyone involved.
4. More behavioural issues arise in mixed classes
Similarly to the low-ability argument, behavioural challenges are attributed to bottom sets but it should come to no surprise that poor behaviour and lack of confidence go hand in hand. As much as I’ve enjoyed teaching some of my bottom sets in the past, having to skirt around the questions: “What set is this?”, “Are the other classes doing this?” “Why are all of our targets below [insert grade here]?” is proof enough that this placement and division is detrimental to attitudes of learners. Starting off by telling students that they aren’t good at something isn’t doing anyone any favours! Behaviour is going to become an issue when students are trying to detract from doing something they feel (and are essentially told) they are not good at, are able to get better at or eventually achieve some success in. “Bottom set” just ends up becoming a defeatist mentality. On the other hand, that’s not to say that the higher sets are devoid of behavioural issues - they just arise in a different form. How many times have you heard or maybe even made comments in the staffroom about “that Set 2 quality?” Defiance has many faces and it shows itself in all ability ranges. And yes the top sets tend to be quieter, with seemingly active and engaged students, but to assume that means there are no behavioural challenges, is wildly naive!
So all in all, I am the converted, preaching. I genuinely believe I was wrong before and while it may seem like I am presenting this way of teaching in English as a silver bullet, of course it isn’t. There are challenges, it does take getting used to; planning and your attitude towards it need to drastically change and your resources need to be very carefully considered. But, and it is a big but, the payoff is worth it - the benefits far outweigh the misconceptualized costs.
Comments
Post a Comment