7a maths(173 Posts)
My dn has been given a end of year maths target for yr 7 as 7a. We don't know what this means is terms of achievement or in terms of topic covered. Anyone know what would need to be mastered for this level? Is this a good level for 11 year old?
My daughter got a 7b at the end of year 7, so with a good maths teacher, it isn't impossible!
This just means what level he is expected to achieve in his end of year 7 exam in which he will take at the end of year 7.
I'm in year 7 now and me and a friend achieved level 7a in maths. This is a high c in GCSE level (beginning of year ten average) so yeah it's basically an outstanding level for a year 7. Me and my friend are now hoping to get a level 8, as we got a 7 in September year 7! Wish us luck!
Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.
The book The Number Devil is also good for showing younger children that there's more to maths than sums.
Yes that's much morewhat hheist doing this year, his books a mess
Not being sufficiently challenged if his work was all the same stuff with minor variations. Problems that require scribblings and crossings out and thought rather than applying an algorithm over and over are better. Obviously practising an algorithm is also required otherwise it gets forgotten!
The nrich website is full of good stuff.
I have read the report.What I'm not sure of is what this enrichment might involve particularly at ks2. Last year my Ds had no wrong answers in his maths exercise book. Was he being enriched by doing the same thing (he could do easily) over and over again with minor variations.Or not being sufficiently challenged ?
The brightest students should not be bored, they should be enriched rather than accelerated (see the ACME report I linked to).
TBH it sounds like the less mathematically gifted are being accelerated.
But different children will understand fractions in very different time frames.If you wait untill the whole mixed ability y4 class understand before moving on. The brightest students will be very, very bored.
But it's not that unusual to find children working a few levels above the expected, especially in Maths. Should they not be catered for in state schools? More often than not they are left to coast as they will give the schools the results needed for their league tables. They are offered little, or any, enrichment in Maths whatsoever.
Isx99, I'm not talking about once in a generation geniuses, it's normal kids who are being pushed through the curriculum at breakneck speed. You could teach a child how to add fractions in a few minutes using a grid method, that doesn't mean it's better than taking the time to understand fractions properly.
I don't think the child I have referred to was "accelerated" through the curriculum, he was working at his own pace and I doubt very much he would have achieved an A* in A level Maths at the age of 10, if he did not have firm foundations and a thorough mastery of the subject. This was achieved whilst fulltime at school, in 9 months at his first attempt. Such children do exist, they learn at an exceptional speed which is "normal" for them. The problem is for the state school system to provide for these children, which they often do not as they are limited by the national curriculum. In return he gave his primary level 6s in Maths AND English (he was one of the few in the country), so clearly works at an advanced level overall.
For example, you could easily teach short division to enable a child to quickly divide large numbers by small, but if they came up against a problem that required a better understanding of division (a lorry can carry 25 tonnes, how many containers weighing 2.2 tonnes can it carry tripped up some able mathematicians I taught, they had no clue how to approach it) they get stuck. It is very easy (and tempting) to teach to a test where the calculations required are obvious. That's generally what accelerated learning achieves.
Just checked long multiplication is level 5 so not necessarily KS2
Noble giraffe I am really trying and failing to imagine how KS2 maths requires deep learning. We are talking about times tables, areas, units and long multiplication aren't we ? Not calculus or algebra which I can imagine would need a level of deep learning.
"It is not unusual for those groups or individuals identified as able mathematicians to be allowed or encouraged to progress through the curriculum at a faster pace. Such acceleration in mathematics is often counterproductive. Acceleration encourages only a shallow mastery of the subject, and so promotes procedural learning at the expense of deep understanding. This shallow acquaintance can also lead to learners feeling insecure4 and fails to adequately promote a commitment to the subject in students. This approach therefore often leads to apparent success without students developing the depth and tenacity that is needed for long-term progression10. In addition, the use of acceleration is in stark contrast to the successful practice in many of the worlds mathematically most highly performing jurisdictions."
From the ACME report here (with references to the research)
One of our children has just sat the SATS, I know the figures because I deal with setting the children from her school when they come to my school. 10% sat the level 6 test and they won't all pass.
With one exception my children go to bog standard local schools and in that environment, which unless you are a mumsnettter is the norm, level 7 in year 7 is fantastic.
I find it quite amazing that it is almost universally acknowledged on here that teachers are dumbing down and yet we all have geniuses for children. Also that this place is supposed to have a huge footfall and therefore one would think it was representative and yet everyone's child is working at the top levels and heading for Oxford and Cambridge.
It is near impossible to hold some children back. The child we know was taking part in Maths olympiads, problem solving using the nrich website, practising Cambridge Step papers for fun and devouring undergraduate Maths text books. This child clearly loved Maths with a passion and holding him back would have been like forcing a child to learn the alphabet/phonics when they could already read.
Noble giraffe didn't seem to do us any harm. It's not either/or. As long as they are not rehashing topics which they "got" perfectly well the first time. IME the difference in the pace dcs can assimilate new ideas in maths is vast.
It's a shame that kids are apparently being pushed through the maths curriculum so fast when research shows that this leads to problems with shallow understanding and shaky foundations. There's also far more to maths than that covered in the level descriptors, there's so much more that could be done with bright students than plowing onto the next level/qualification.
The thing about maths is either you "get it " or you don't. C at GCSe equates to what exactly ? A bit of simple algebra, trigonometry and arithmetic a bright 11 year old can be taught that stuff. It's not like English where you need advanced reasoning which most 11 year old won't be able to do. Thinking back some of my contemporaries took GCSe maths age 14 and got an A. Therefore they might have got a C 2 years previously.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now »
Already registered? Log in with:
Please login first.