“All the evidence shows that if you start behind, you stay behind. A better start at secondary school is a better start in life.”
Wise Words? These were uttered by Nick Clegg regarding the sweeping plans to overhaul primary education in this country and to introduce testing all eleven year olds and ranking them in ten per cent ability bands. He has unveiled plans to scrap the current assessment system in primary schools and replace them with a baseline test which will happen in the first few weeks of a child’s schooling, aiming to then test them before they go to secondary school with a test that will be sat nationally so that pupils can be ranked against their peers across the country as well as see how much progress they have made since they started school.
There is a small part of me that can see where he is coming from with this proposal. As a parent, I want my children to have the best possible start in life and I know that although it is not the key to everything, a good education will set them up for a better life. As a teacher, I have similar feelings; kids should have equal access to a great education whichever school that they go to and I welcome proposals that help with this. Like in every walk of life, there are good schools and bad schools and even within good schools there can be teachers who don’t perform as well as others. In theory, the idea of raising standards across the primary curriculum is a good one. Pupils who have a solid grounding from their primary education will be better equipped to make that big move up to secondary school.
However, when I hear the words ‘national testing’ and ‘ranking’, my heart sinks. These are after all children that we are talking about. Our future generation. Millions of little individuals who are all very different and unique and amazing at something, but for some these tests will not be a positive move . How is it going to feel for those pupils who are in the bottom ten per cent? That is a label that for me is not going to be a good starting point for secondary school; a time that can be stressful enough for a child already with the actual, physical and hormonal changes that are going on.
I was chatting to a mum at school about the proposed changes this morning and her son was standing with us taking it all in. Her son is a lovely little boy; incredibly gifted at art and who loves history and science but is less motivated in other areas. He listened intently to our conversation and then said with a sigh;” I would be in the bottom ten per cent” and he shuffled off sadly.
To me that illustrates the problem with these sorts of tests. These amazing, unique individuals may not be strong in literacy and numeracy but may have artistic skills that are way beyond their peers. Some children find that their strengths lie in the less academic areas. Some children don’t find their learning groove until they leave the confines of school. That is not to say that the core subjects aren’t important, I know that they are, but what can we do to make the bottom ten or twenty per cent feel better about themselves? What about the children with learning difficulties; how will these tests affect them? What about the children who just don’t fare well in tests?
You may argue that children are already tested and yes they are, probably a little too much if you ask me, but there is a huge difference between being given a level between 1 and 5 and being told that you are in the bottom ten per cent of the country.
Someone pointed out also that surely being in the bottom ten per cent is no different to being in a bottom set. Again, I do agree to an extent. Being in a bottom set can cause what I call ‘bottom set syndrome’ where the children feel as though they are the worst at that subject and this can cause a real lack of motivation and a poor attitude, but there is always the possibility of moving up if a child works hard and often these sets are much smaller and there can be real benefits to being in a group like that.
You may argue that children are already tested and yes they are, probably a little too much if you ask me, but there is a huge difference between being given a level between 1 and 5 and being told that you are in the bottom ten per cent of the country.
Someone pointed out also that surely being in the bottom ten per cent is no different to being in a bottom set. Again, I do agree to an extent. Being in a bottom set can cause what I call ‘bottom set syndrome’ where the children feel as though they are the worst at that subject and this can cause a real lack of motivation and a poor attitude, but there is always the possibility of moving up if a child works hard and often these sets are much smaller and there can be real benefits to being in a group like that.
I am a teacher and a parent and I can see it from both sides. Yes, I agree that something needs to be done to raise standards. I don’t have the answers but one thing is to encourage children to become free thinking and independent from an earlier age so that they are able to face the pressures of secondary school and work independently. Maybe the answer lies more in what happens in between a child starting school and moving onto secondary; the emphasis should be on training and resources that actually help to improve the standard of education across all primary schools? Maybe the current system simply needs tweaking a little to move it in the right direction?
In the end, I keep coming back to Nick Clegg’s words “if you start behind, you stay behind” and that is what worries me, these children who are ‘behind’ will they ever have the motivation to even try to catch up if they are labelled as the lowest achievers at this young and fragile age.
Regarding your view of the bizarrely named “sets”. You mentioned that “there is always the possibility of moving up”. No, not always.
The “setting” system was used in the secondary school that I went to. In all my time at school, I never once heard of even one person, who got to move up a “set”. Most people were in middle or bottom “sets”, while only a few were in the top ones. Nobody who was in a bottom “set” for any subject, was in a top one, for another subject. The teaching varied dramatically, between the middle and bottom “sets”. Even amongst the middle ones, it varied a lot, ranging from okay to almost minimal. The teaching in the bottom ones was appalling and usually non-existent. When it happened at all, it was almost always just copying from a board or a text book, with no explanation of what it was that we were copying. Because of this, the classes just descended into a combination of bad behaviour and chatting. Even some of the teachers in the bottom “sets” preferred just to chat to some of the students, once the classes started misbehaving.
Just a few times, the normal teachers of the bottom “sets” were not in, so, we had supply teachers. They could actually, teach. In one class, one of them asked us students what we normally do and how far along we were in the subject. Some people told the truth and that supply teacher was surprised. They then got on with actually teaching us what we were supposed to be learning by that point. Instantly and as if by magic, the people who normally talked and misbehaved, did not. They got on with the work and only talked to the teacher when help was needed. At the end of the lesson, they even told the supply teacher that they were great and how we students wished that they could be our normal teacher! This, in a so-called bottom “set”! Unfortunately, that kind of teaching was a one-off and from then on, we only had the usual teacher. The result was that almost all the other students went back to talking and misbehaving, in the rest of the lessons until leaving school.
The other big disadvantage of the “setting” system in the UK is that it leaves most people either poorly prepared or unprepared, for the final school exams, GCSEs.
Even worse, it arbitrarily limits how well people can do in them. For example, people in middle “sets” are only allowed to achieve a maximum grade of B or C, depending on the subject. People in bottom “sets” are only allowed to achieve a maximum grade of D or E, depending on the subject.
“Setting” was nothing more than idealism. Stupid ideology that was treated as a dogma. Other people that I knew in middle or bottom “sets”, left school either with low GCSE grades or, none at all. Only a few went into further education but, had to spend that time retaking GCSEs and even then, it was only possible to retake them in two or three academic subjects. Even now, they can’t spell properly, have almost no ability to use punctuation, have no knowledge of grammar and cannot speak another language at all.
This is obviously a subject very close to your heart and I know that in the past, this was certainly true of the setting system. It is a really hard one as mixed ability teaching has the benefits of including everyone but it is then impossible to really push the brighter children. Setting obviously helps teachers to teach to the right ability but there is often a stigma attached to being in a ‘bottom set’ and the behaviour of some kids can mean that the level of teaching can be affected, so there is no real answer to the problem. I do think that these days however, in my experience, lower sets are taught much better now and especially with the use of IT and more interactive teaching, that certainly helps. Whether that prepares them for life after school, I don’t really know but schools are more geared to preparing those students to get their core subjects which must help them.
Thanks for taking the time to comment
The problem with focusing on the brighter children is that too often, everyone else gets left behind. Who gets to decide and how, who the bright children are? Too many people mix up intelligence with academic achievement, which are not the same things. One of them is how far people move through a system, while the other is how much people can think for themselves.
This subject does not have to be a hard one.
The “setting” system seems to be more about what is convenient for teachers and the school system in general, rather than what children need.
It would not be a problem if everyone in it got the same opportunities but, they don’t. The selected few who get into top “sets” get the teachers who actually teach and, the opportunity to achieve high grades in GCSEs. Everyone else is arbitrarily limited to lower grades and teachers who do little or nothing in terms of decent teaching. Bottom sets in particular, often get teachers who are not good enough or, just can’t be bothered. Frequently, teachers of middle and bottom “sets” do not teach to the right ability. They either do too little or, just tell a class to copy text from a board or book. That meant in my school that it made no difference if people were willing to work and achieve something. They were effectively written off because, they were not allowed to achieve more than a particular grade in particular subjects.
The example that I gave above, about the class that as if by magic, did not misbehave when we had a teacher that could actually teach; makes a very important point. You mentioned that the behaviour of some kids can mean that the level of teaching can be affected. What too many people do not realise is that a lot of bad behaviour in lessons comes from children being bored and already knowing that their GCSE opportunities are limited because of the “setting” system. I don’t mean that lessons should be about entertainment, I mean that there should always be enough work to do. The work should also be meaningful (unlike copying) and should give an opportunity to make progress through it. It really helps to motivate anyone to do something, if they can see that they can make some tangible progress in it. When these things do not exist, is when a lot of bad behaviour happens. I’m not saying that is the only reason for it but, it is the reason for a lot of bad behaviour. I also don’t mean that teachers should give massive amounts of work to children but, enough so that there is always something to do.
People in middle and bottom “sets” are arbitrarily limited in terms of exam grades because, they are only allowed to do “intermediate” or “foundation” level GCSE papers. Those papers only allow a maximum grade of B or C or, D or E, depending on subject. “Higher” level papers allow a maximum grade of A* and are reserved only for the chosen few in top “sets”. This means that their results are foregone conclusions and it makes no difference if people are willing to work and achieve something. If they need a high grade for particular things to do after age 16 (such as going into particular, higher education courses) or, are just willing to try for one, that does not make any difference. They are prevented from gaining one.
The arbitrary, random limiting of exam grades and the frequent, poor teaching combine to create bad behaviour and put people off from even trying in school. Those, few people who are willing to try despite the system, have to wait until they are old enough to start sixth form where there are opportunities to achieve high grades, in order to make a serious attempt at GCSEs. That means waiting to retake them in sixth form and that school is therefore, a massive waste of time.
No you are absolutely right and my son is a good example of a child who is very bright but gets bored really easily and I worry about him with the current system as I know he ‘should’ be in top sets but if the subject or teacher bores him, he will wander off and do something else and then he is perceived as naughty.
I genuinely think that the whole system needs to be looked at and offering more choices for kids too.
It’s not just about children who are deemed to be bright. Any children who are left without suitable work and an opportunity to make progress in it, will become bored and are likely to misbehave.
The “setting” system causes another problem with coursework. Because coursework is imposed as a precondition for doing exams, just being allowed to do them is a massive challenge for people in middle and bottom “sets”. This is because the teachers for those classes often don’t care or, are just not up to the job. Completing that kind of work requires teachers to explain a lot because, it often is in the form of a project. It also requires regular support from them. Receiving that is usually next to impossible, from teachers who are not only not fit for purpose but, have a class of 30 or more, badly behaved students to control. Some teachers are even dismissive when people ask for the coursework to be explained. The result is often that many students are not even allowed to do exams for certain subjects, because they have not had what they need in order to complete the coursework.
I am not saying that all children are deemed bright, but, that should not be an excuse to limit their education and opportunities in life. Even if they are not considered to be people who will achieve A* grades in all their GCSEs and then go on to achieve top grades in AS levels, A levels and university; they should at least be allowed to try.
Most people are capable of achieving at least a grade C or above, in all their GCSE subjects. Most of the people that I knew in secondary school, were not intrinsically incapable of getting on with schoolwork. The few times that we had decent teachers, they had no problems with it. Honestly, I can only think of one person in any of my classes, who could not get on and work, no matter what happened. I think that they had some other problems in their life outside school that were affecting their motivation and ability to concentrate. The problems were made worse by that person being in bottom “sets”, were the work was almost always just copying text. Very few people can’t get on with schoolwork, if given an opportunity. Certainly a lot less than a lot of adults seem to assume. Those few should be in specialist schools and receiving specialist help not only with teaching, but also with the other problems in their lives that prevent them from getting on in a conventional school.
The main point is, whichever system is used in schools, it should at least give people the opportunity to work hard and achieve high grades. Even if they will not move on to higher education, afterwards, that should at least be a possibility. Currently, that is not the case in a lot of schools.
I do agree with you to a point but having worked as a teacher myself, there are some pupils that will not achieve a C in some subjects. That is not to say in all but I taught French and even using different strategies and methods, there were some that couldn’t quite get there in the exam. Maybe some subjects are different, but I know that languages generally struggle to get everyone through. I do agree about the boredom though and I think a lot of schools are now embracing technology more to try and help and I think that is a positive.
Offering more choices will not make much difference if the basic problems that I mentioned, are not solved. It would just be even more of the same.
You’re right, the system needs to be looked at because it is woefully inadequate. The different tiers of exams, coursework, the “setting” system and acceptance of poor quality teachers, are the main problems with it and should be abolished. They perpetuate the current, poor standard in a lot of British schools.