Comments on: The Joy of Sets http://oldandrew.edublogs.org/2007/05/20/the-joy-of-sets-2/ A Blog About Teaching in Tough Schools in the UK Sat, 11 Oct 2008 14:02:49 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Chenneth http://oldandrew.edublogs.org/2007/05/20/the-joy-of-sets-2/#comment-757 Chenneth Thu, 17 Apr 2008 21:14:46 +0000 http://oldandrew.edublogs.org/2007/05/20/the-joy-of-sets-2/#comment-757 Chris Curtis' makes sense though it is very confusing. When I was doing sociology of education I distinctly remember learning that 25 was the maximum size a class could before it become extremely difficult to manage. <b>The big question is why is this being routinely ignored in UK secondary schools. Even with top set groups it is dificult due to the sheer amount of work/marking etc. I have never had a class smaller than 26 (although sometimes a lot didn't turn up so in a way it was about 22-23) How am average calss size was aroung 31 and I even had a class of 36. To make matters worse the 36 class was not a top set but made up of middle and bottom sets - the consequence of this it that no-one in the school could control them. The fact the it was impossible to even see the whole class because of the room gave plenty of opportunities for disruption. At the same school (in the North East of England) the art department had the best results in the country. Interesting how anyone not expected to get an 'A' at GCSE was removed and sent to do history (consequently turning our results and classes in to a nightmare) but the SMT wanted to maintain the high standard of the Art department and regualry praised them for their excellent teaching and hardwork - its nice that there are so many 'dedicated professionals' out there! Chris Curtis’ makes sense though it is very confusing. When I was doing sociology of education I distinctly remember learning that 25 was the maximum size a class could before it become extremely difficult to manage. The big question is why is this being routinely ignored in UK secondary schools. Even with top set groups it is dificult due to the sheer amount of work/marking etc. I have never had a class smaller than 26 (although sometimes a lot didn’t turn up so in a way it was about 22-23) How am average calss size was aroung 31 and I even had a class of 36. To make matters worse the 36 class was not a top set but made up of middle and bottom sets - the consequence of this it that no-one in the school could control them. The fact the it was impossible to even see the whole class because of the room gave plenty of opportunities for disruption.

At the same school (in the North East of England) the art department had the best results in the country. Interesting how anyone not expected to get an ‘A’ at GCSE was removed and sent to do history (consequently turning our results and classes in to a nightmare) but the SMT wanted to maintain the high standard of the Art department and regualry praised them for their excellent teaching and hardwork - its nice that there are so many ‘dedicated professionals’ out there!

]]> By: Chris Curtis http://oldandrew.edublogs.org/2007/05/20/the-joy-of-sets-2/#comment-756 Chris Curtis Mon, 21 Jan 2008 03:52:28 +0000 http://oldandrew.edublogs.org/2007/05/20/the-joy-of-sets-2/#comment-756 I have only recently come across this blog and as you mentioned the claimed timetabling difficulties of what in the UK is called setting, I thought I’d dispute that as a former timetabler in three different schools in Australia, the last two of which had extensive what we call blocking, which makes setting easy. Timetabling is complex, but is often made more so by ad hoc curriculum decisions which work against each other in terms of practicalities. The computer program I used, First Class, was an excellent program and would perform tens of millions of calculations in doing a timetable and would always leave a couple of dozen periods – out of c 3,000 – for me to fill myself, which can always bee done by over-riding the parameters set for the computer. However, if the structure being timetabled makes sense, the results will be better. I see that this blog is mostly about student behaviour. I believe that the smaller classes and lower teaching loads in Victoria contribute to the better behaviour and better results of students in our school when compared with schools in the UK, where class sizes and teaching loads seem to be absurd. Australia consistently performs in the top ten countries in the world in reading, mathematics and science. The most recent OECD Program for International Student Assessment (PISA2006_PISAinbrief.pdf) put only five countries statistically significantly ahead of us in reading, only eight countries in mathematics and only three countries in science. Victorian Class Sizes and PTRs The primary school pupil-teacher ratio in Victoria was 15.9:1 in 2006, and the secondary PTR was 11.9:1. The overall Australian figures were 15.8:1 and 12.4:1. Victorian schools are funded to cap prep to year 2 classes at 21 pupils each, while the overall maximum average for classes is in a primary school is set at 26 pupils. The average prep class in the state has 19.4 pupils. The average prep to year 2 class has 20.7 pupils. The average primary school class has 23.4 pupils. Secondary school classes are generally capped at 25 students. The average secondary English class has 21.6 students, while the average year 12 class has 19.7 students. I taught in Victoria from 1974 to 2007, and I never had a class with more than 29 students in it, not for even one day. In 1975, I had one class of more than 25 students, and in 1981, I had two classes of more than 25 students. Apart from those three classes, every class I ever had for a full year was limited to 25 students. There were a few classes in all those years which had more than 25 students for short periods while things were sorted out. In 2005, my year 7 English classes were 14 and 16 students each. HPSC Conditions As the Hampton Park Secondary College timetabler until the end of 2004, I organised that school with a maximum teaching load of just under 18 hours a week, and average regular class load of 15 hours 45 minutes and the capacity for decent time allowances (deductions from teaching loads for leadership responsibilities). The maximum timetabled teaching load in that school when I was the timetabler was 21 48-minute periods a week (16 hours and 48 Minutes) plus a home group (nine minutes a day) plus an extra once a fortnight. These were the best conditions in the state. To put it another way, a teacher at that school would have got 42.9 per cent of his or her timetabled class load for preparation and correction, with the proviso that one of the 18 periods thus made available in a fortnight could be taken as an extra to cover the class of an absent colleague, which still would have left 40.5 per cent – and that teacher wouldn’t have been doing preparation and correction for classes of 30-plus students, but classes of 25 students at the maximum and 21.3 students on average. The curriculum structure at Hampton Park meant that no teacher could have more than seven classes, while no teacher could have more than four classes of maths or English. It would not have been mathematically possible for any maths or English teacher to have more than four groups because all maths and English classes were 4.5 periods a week, and no one could teach more than 21 periods. A maths or English teacher would have had another subject, such as science or history, for 3 periods to make up the load. The school had 92.3 teachers for 1187 students in 2004. Curriculum structure details are at: http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/3280197123/show/591560 and timetabling policies are at: http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/3280197123/show/682089 while accounts of some of the realities of the school are at: http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/3280197123/show/618849 and at: http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/3280197123/show/681189. I hope this is of interest to teachers in the UK. I have only recently come across this blog and as you mentioned the claimed timetabling difficulties of what in the UK is called setting, I thought I’d dispute that as a former timetabler in three different schools in Australia, the last two of which had extensive what we call blocking, which makes setting easy. Timetabling is complex, but is often made more so by ad hoc curriculum decisions which work against each other in terms of practicalities. The computer program I used, First Class, was an excellent program and would perform tens of millions of calculations in doing a timetable and would always leave a couple of dozen periods – out of c 3,000 – for me to fill myself, which can always bee done by over-riding the parameters set for the computer. However, if the structure being timetabled makes sense, the results will be better.

I see that this blog is mostly about student behaviour. I believe that the smaller classes and lower teaching loads in Victoria contribute to the better behaviour and better results of students in our school when compared with schools in the UK, where class sizes and teaching loads seem to be absurd.

Australia consistently performs in the top ten countries in the world in reading, mathematics and science. The most recent OECD Program for International Student Assessment (PISA2006_PISAinbrief.pdf) put only five countries statistically significantly ahead of us in reading, only eight countries in mathematics and only three countries in science.

Victorian Class Sizes and PTRs
The primary school pupil-teacher ratio in Victoria was 15.9:1 in 2006, and the secondary PTR was 11.9:1. The overall Australian figures were 15.8:1 and 12.4:1.

Victorian schools are funded to cap prep to year 2 classes at 21 pupils each, while the overall maximum average for classes is in a primary school is set at 26 pupils. The average prep class in the state has 19.4 pupils. The average prep to year 2 class has 20.7 pupils. The average primary school class has 23.4 pupils.

Secondary school classes are generally capped at 25 students. The average secondary English class has 21.6 students, while the average year 12 class has 19.7 students.

I taught in Victoria from 1974 to 2007, and I never had a class with more than 29 students in it, not for even one day. In 1975, I had one class of more than 25 students, and in 1981, I had two classes of more than 25 students. Apart from those three classes, every class I ever had for a full year was limited to 25 students. There were a few classes in all those years which had more than 25 students for short periods while things were sorted out. In 2005, my year 7 English classes were 14 and 16 students each.

HPSC Conditions
As the Hampton Park Secondary College timetabler until the end of 2004, I organised that school with a maximum teaching load of just under 18 hours a week, and average regular class load of 15 hours 45 minutes and the capacity for decent time allowances (deductions from teaching loads for leadership responsibilities). The maximum timetabled teaching load in that school when I was the timetabler was 21 48-minute periods a week (16 hours and 48 Minutes) plus a home group (nine minutes a day) plus an extra once a fortnight. These were the best conditions in the state.

To put it another way, a teacher at that school would have got 42.9 per cent of his or her timetabled class load for preparation and correction, with the proviso that one of the 18 periods thus made available in a fortnight could be taken as an extra to cover the class of an absent colleague, which still would have left 40.5 per cent – and that teacher wouldn’t have been doing preparation and correction for classes of 30-plus students, but classes of 25 students at the maximum and 21.3 students on average.

The curriculum structure at Hampton Park meant that no teacher could have more than seven classes, while no teacher could have more than four classes of maths or English. It would not have been mathematically possible for any maths or English teacher to have more than four groups because all maths and English classes were 4.5 periods a week, and no one could teach more than 21 periods. A maths or English teacher would have had another subject, such as science or history, for 3 periods to make up the load.

The school had 92.3 teachers for 1187 students in 2004.

Curriculum structure details are at:
http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/3280197123/show/591560
and timetabling policies are at:
http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/3280197123/show/682089
while accounts of some of the realities of the school are at: http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/3280197123/show/618849
and at:
http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/3280197123/show/681189.

I hope this is of interest to teachers in the UK.

]]> By: oldandrew http://oldandrew.edublogs.org/2007/05/20/the-joy-of-sets-2/#comment-520 oldandrew Sat, 26 May 2007 09:55:12 +0000 http://oldandrew.edublogs.org/2007/05/20/the-joy-of-sets-2/#comment-520 You know for a philosopher, Newisgood, you seem to have a lot of problems with understanding the philosophy of others. I don't dislike students and I don't dislike anyone for "being a sinner", that's just the human condition. That said having a traditional view of human nature does influence my educational philosophy, in as much as I do not believe these infantile fantasies that all students are naturally saints and intellectuals who only misbehave or show ignorance because they are oppressed by the system. You know for a philosopher, Newisgood, you seem to have a lot of problems with understanding the philosophy of others. I don’t dislike students and I don’t dislike anyone for “being a sinner”, that’s just the human condition.

That said having a traditional view of human nature does influence my educational philosophy, in as much as I do not believe these infantile fantasies that all students are naturally saints and intellectuals who only misbehave or show ignorance because they are oppressed by the system.

]]> By: Newsisgood http://oldandrew.edublogs.org/2007/05/20/the-joy-of-sets-2/#comment-519 Newsisgood Fri, 25 May 2007 10:24:25 +0000 http://oldandrew.edublogs.org/2007/05/20/the-joy-of-sets-2/#comment-519 Suddenly your dislike of students makes sense, oldandrew: 315 | Posted by: oldandrew at 25 May 2007 10:02 But you are a sinner. I'm not judging you, I don't even know you. But you are a sinner. Everybody is. http://www.tes.co.uk/section/staffroom/thread.aspx?story_id=2383310&path=/Opinion/&threadPage=&messagePage=32 Suddenly your dislike of students makes sense, oldandrew:

315 | Posted by: oldandrew at 25 May 2007 10:02

But you are a sinner. I’m not judging you, I don’t even know you. But you are a sinner. Everybody is.

http://www.tes.co.uk/section/staffroom/thread.aspx?story_id=2383310&path=/Opinion/&threadPage=&messagePage=32

]]> By: jdc http://oldandrew.edublogs.org/2007/05/20/the-joy-of-sets-2/#comment-518 jdc Thu, 24 May 2007 09:56:17 +0000 http://oldandrew.edublogs.org/2007/05/20/the-joy-of-sets-2/#comment-518 I liked this. <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/anatole_kaletsky/article1832196.ece" rel="nofollow">http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/anatole_kaletsky/article1832196.ece</a> I liked this.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/anatole_kaletsky/article1832196.ece

]]> By: lilyofthefield http://oldandrew.edublogs.org/2007/05/20/the-joy-of-sets-2/#comment-517 lilyofthefield Mon, 21 May 2007 21:39:34 +0000 http://oldandrew.edublogs.org/2007/05/20/the-joy-of-sets-2/#comment-517 Lost a paragraph there. It worked because the bottom baddie set was genuinely mixed ability as far as innate ability went. The thing that united them was their bad attitude. And therefore the other set wasn't the bottom set. Lost a paragraph there.
It worked because the bottom baddie set was genuinely mixed ability as far as innate ability went. The thing that united them was their bad attitude. And therefore the other set wasn’t the bottom set.

]]> By: lilyofthefield http://oldandrew.edublogs.org/2007/05/20/the-joy-of-sets-2/#comment-516 lilyofthefield Mon, 21 May 2007 21:37:45 +0000 http://oldandrew.edublogs.org/2007/05/20/the-joy-of-sets-2/#comment-516 You have missed another reason: the cold hard fact of having to label a child thick. If children are set by ability, it stands to reason that there is going to be a bottom set. No-one wants their child to be in it, no-one wants to teach it. I have seen two schools use this way around it: children fail at school either because they lack ability or because they lack will. Sometimes the two go together, often one predisposes to the other; but it doesn't take a very experienced teacher to see that in every bottom set, there are those willing to learn but who are prevented from doing so by those willing to do nothing but disrupt. In a top-achieving state school I taught at, these were observed in Y7 and split in Y8 into two sets: those who would learn with appropriate support and those who were shat on from a great height and MADE to work by the school 'ard men (women in fact). There were two qualified teachers plus BSW and TA in every lesson. The school reckoned it was money well spent because it stopped them contaminating the rest of the school, which was mixed ability within upper and lower bands. Is now a good time to out myself as A Cheat who did indeed once falsify test scores to rid myself of a troublesome brat who spoiled an otherwise lovely class? It's OK though because he and I had A Personality Clash so it was best he was moved :) You have missed another reason: the cold hard fact of having to label a child thick. If children are set by ability, it stands to reason that there is going to be a bottom set. No-one wants their child to be in it, no-one wants to teach it.

I have seen two schools use this way around it: children fail at school either because they lack ability or because they lack will. Sometimes the two go together, often one predisposes to the other; but it doesn’t take a very experienced teacher to see that in every bottom set, there are those willing to learn but who are prevented from doing so by those willing to do nothing but disrupt. In a top-achieving state school I taught at, these were observed in Y7 and split in Y8 into two sets: those who would learn with appropriate support and those who were shat on from a great height and MADE to work by the school ‘ard men (women in fact). There were two qualified teachers plus BSW and TA in every lesson. The school reckoned it was money well spent because it stopped them contaminating the rest of the school, which was mixed ability within upper and lower bands.

Is now a good time to out myself as A Cheat who did indeed once falsify test scores to rid myself of a troublesome brat who spoiled an otherwise lovely class? It’s OK though because he and I had A Personality Clash so it was best he was moved :)

]]>