Arguably, setting only really benefits the teacher.
It’s uncomfortable to say that out loud, but we should be prepared to think about it honestly. Setting is usually justified as being in students’ best interests, as a way of narrowing the ability range in a class, making teaching more precise and thus improving outcomes.
But if we allow ourselves to think beyond the here and now and imagine a future where setting by ability simply does not exist, it exposes how much of our current philosophy is shaped by adult convenience rather than children’s learning.
Setting by ability
Imagine a system where schools are not allowed to organise students by perceived ability in any subject, with no quiet assumptions about who belongs where. Every classroom contains a genuine mix of abilities, confidence, need and potential. What would that force us to change?
My own questioning began over 25 years ago when I was a teacher in the East End of London. I remember asking myself why we put students into English sets at all.
English is a qualitative subject by nature. It is interpretive, creative and deeply human and yet we divided pupils into ranked groups as if their potential in the subject could be neatly measured and “fixed”.
Attainment gaps
The more I reflected, the more I realised that the rationale had less to do with learning and more to do with manageability. Setting makes teaching feel “easier”. At least for some.
That realisation led me to make setting the focus for my dissertation for my MA in education that I completed while teaching. I reviewed a wide range of research - some of it from the respected Institute of Education, now part of UCL - and carried out my own case study research in a number of local schools.
I looked at students’ books and results, but the most powerful insights came from speaking to people directly involved and impacted. I interviewed students, staff (teachers and leaders) and parents, particularly those connected with the highest and lowest sets.
Missed potential
What students in the lower and lowest sets told me has stayed with me ever since. They spoke about poor self-esteem and low confidence. They were very aware that they were in the lowest set, regardless of any euphemisms used.
They described classrooms that were frequently noisy and unsettled, where learning felt secondary to behaviour management and where expectations and aspirations were, at best, capped and, at worst, low.
These conversations were candid and often heart-wrenching, and they underline why schools must stop categorising young people in ways that tell them, implicitly or explicitly, that they are less capable, less valued or less likely to attain well.
Fixed outcomes
Leaders often defend setting by claiming that it is fluid, with students moving up as they make progress. In practice, this often doesn’t happen in any meaningful and dynamic way.
Movement across sets also has implications. For every student who moves up, another must move down, and that requires difficult decisions and conversations. As a result, sets often become static.
In a future without setting, this pretence of fluidity would disappear and schools would focus instead on how progress happens within classrooms, not between them.
One of the most troubling patterns I observed in my research was the composition of the lower and lowest sets. They were frequently populated by students with English as an additional language and those with special educational needs and disabilities. In a number of cases, students were placed in sets based on their fluency in English or their time in the country, rather than their underlying ability, potential and subject understanding.
Bias in education
This reveals how easily unconscious bias shapes decision-making. A ban on setting would ensure that schools confronted these assumptions and separated language, behaviour, class and background from academic potential.
Staffing would also have to change. My research found that heads and heads of department typically placed their strongest teachers with the highest sets and their weakest with the lowest. The rationale would often be that the most able needed expert subject knowledge to secure top grades.
The effect was that students with the greatest needs were taught by those least equipped to meet them and often without degree-level subject expertise. In the worst cases, teaching the lowest set became about containment rather than education.
Achievement for all
In a system without setting, that approach would no longer be viable. Teachers would need to develop the capability to teach across a wider ability spectrum. This should be seen as a good thing. It would enhance professionalism rather than diminish it.
A teacher who only ever teaches top sets misses the opportunity to refine the skills needed to support struggling learners or those at key attainment boundaries. A teacher who only ever teaches the lowest sets misses the chance to extend and challenge the most able. Mixed-ability teaching demands deeper knowledge of students and stronger pedagogy.
For students, the benefits extend beyond attainment. In mixed-ability classrooms, learning is reinforced and is social as students hear high-quality responses from their peers. Students who are struggling are immersed with strong role models from within their peer group. They learn by explaining ideas to others and by listening to different perspectives.
Banning setting
Lower-achieving learners are not isolated from excellence, and more confident students develop empathy, leadership and communication skills. These are valuable skills for life as workplaces are mixed, relationships are complex and success depends on collaboration and understanding differences.
Perhaps most importantly, banning setting would help us to stop capping the potential of young people. The middle-set phenomenon is revealing. In many secondary schools, the unspoken purpose of the middle set is to get students over the line to a GCSE grade 4 or 5. Once that threshold is reached, the job is often considered done.
Yet when you look at prior attainment, many of those students should have achieved higher grades at GCSE. Such an approach can become about hitting benchmarks, not maximising individual potential and progress.
Setting persists because it feels efficient and reassuring in a sometimes high-stakes system.
Imagining a future without it forces us to confront a deeper question about what we value. If we genuinely believe in young people’s potential, we need to teach more inclusively and humanely.
David Hatchett is CEO of Anthem Schools Trust, which runs 11 primary schools and four secondary schools
You can now get the UK’s most-trusted source of education news in a mobile app. Get Tes magazine on iOS and on Android
