A recent report on a UCL study about teaching in classes grouped by ability has sparked discussion among educators. John Marriott, a retired modern foreign languages teacher, shared his experience with mixed-ability teaching. He noted that he struggled for years to devise lessons catering to all abilities and quickly concluded that setting, where students are grouped by ability per subject, is more effective. He pointed out that many lay people confuse streaming, where students are taught all subjects at the same level, with setting. Marriott believes that able students are often held back by those who struggle, especially in cumulative subjects like modern foreign languages.
Setting vs Mixed-Ability: International Perspectives
Michael Pyke from The Campaign for State Education argued that the Education Endowment Foundation research, which shows setting by ability produces better results in maths overall, is limited because it is based on schools in England. He questioned whether these results would be replicated in countries like Finland and Estonia, which have higher maths attainment and insist on mixed-ability classes. Pyke suggested that perhaps England should look at how teachers are trained instead of rushing to set by ability.
Key Points of Debate
- Mixed-ability teaching requires significant effort to cater to all students, and some argue it holds back advanced learners.
- Setting by ability may improve results in some subjects, but international examples show that mixed-ability classes can also succeed.
- The debate highlights the need for better teacher training and a broader view of educational practices.
The letters conclude that while setting may have benefits, it is not a one-size-fits-all solution. Countries like Finland and Estonia demonstrate that mixed-ability classes can achieve high attainment, suggesting that other factors, such as teacher training and curriculum design, play a crucial role.
