Setting for Maths in Year 7

I’m a bit uneasy about making school/early years compulsory as macron would like it. I can understand it being a good environment for learning and not “babysitting” but it’s by no means the only way of doing it. He seems to think they can build national cohesion through this - which may work. But I guess you also have to think about relationships with parents and grandparents... I’m glad we have a choice in UK.

I find it odd. But then myself and DSis were both august babies and my reception teacher told DM I might as well have not gone to school that year! I believe (but am seriously thinking back a number of years) that Scotland has a different system, whereby those born around the cut off can choose which year to go in to.

Clavinova - really? But even then, delaying a year isn’t the end of the world - they still get like 14years of education. Plus - it’s an extra year before the kid can start working... so wouldn’t thst be a disincentive?

France is to make school compulsory from three years old, President Emmanuel Macron, has announced, insisting that the earlier children are in class, the higher their chances of success and integration in society

Currently, school is compulsory in France at the age of six, when primary school starts, but in reality the vast majority - almost 98 per cent - of three-year-olds attend nursery

Mr Macron said the time had come to cease seeing school at that age as “an option” and that the new rule would apply from the start of the school year in September 2019

The Elysée said that nurseries should no longer be viewed as places for “universal babysitting” but as a “proper school aimed at acquiring language and helping children flourish

The state will have to employ at least 800 more teachers to cater for the extra children

France is lowering the compulsory school starting age from age 6 to age 3 next year - all 3 year olds will have to attend a formal school setting from September 2019.

This is pre-school of course, kindergarten, early-years type curriculum. Not like advancing starting Reception at 3 and Year 1 at 4!

Conceptually, they start 'proper' school later, at 6, they let children to stay children for longer, as it were. (Although as discussed above some children when they are ready can start earlier at 4)

They also compared data for children who started pre-school at 2. They found no difference in attainment at 15 and 18 between those who started at 2 or at 3, across all socio economics.

Whilst parents from middle-class families

France is lowering the compulsory school starting age from age 6 to age 3 next year - all 3 year olds will have to attend a formal school setting from September 2019. President Macron wants to better integrate children with Muslim/Islamic heritage to counter extremism and to raise attainment levels amongst disadvantaged groups.

Namenic
Interestingly in the primary thread It seems that some LAs and head teachers seem very against deferral of school for summer borns

Whilst children from middle-class families might be arranging all sorts of stimulating activities for their pre-schooler - there are plenty of parents from disadvantaged/disaffected groups who would rather stay in bed than take their child to school at 8.30 am in the morning.

Adalind - what an odd policy?! I read somewhere that local authorities might not like it if parents re-apply to popular primary schools they didn’t get into first time. But there are ways around this - like having to declare late start before choosing school. Why are some people against it?

Namenic, I don't tend to read primary threads, but my understanding is that (in England) summer borns don't have to start school until the after Easter but they have to join the same class. It isn't (to the best of my knowledge) a system whereby summer born children can wait and join the class the following year. So it would mean that those born in summer would essentially have lost two terms of schooling.

Interestingly in the primary thread It seems that some LAs and head teachers seem very against deferral of school for summer borns.

Anyone know why? I imagine implementing the french system of not starting based on not having acquired some skills would meet even more resistance. But it seems sensible to me if parent and child are ok with it.

We have more than 5% on the SEN register, if that is what you mean - but that is what you would expects, as many SEN won't affect Maths performance.

The thing is, we do EXACTLY what you object to, ie what you describe as 'setting' - grouping children with similar needs in some lessons in order to facilitate support and differentiation. Which is why I know that what you state as 'the problem' (in class grouping / table grouping / differentiation) ISN'T the problem.. or rather, it does not CAUSE the problem.

But then, we only have around 5% not achieving the required standard at the end of KS2 (standard state primary), much better than your target of 10%.

That is fantastic indeed. I wish my DC were in your class. It demonstrates that your practice is NOT representative of the majority of children. Nationally, 36% fall short of the standard, not 5...

Individual experience is very valid, but statistics tell the basis of reality.

I hope the 5% that didn't pass SATs in your class are not all with at least average or even 99% ability but with SEN? Because then they should have passed too.

Marco,

Sets exacerbate differences.

Yes there are differences in ability that fall on a bell curve. But they are narrow enough to fit most of the curve except the far edge in one class as it were, into a pipeline. At the end of the pipe, the grades would also fit on the bell curve. The best on top with exceptional marks, the least able with low marks. But more of the children will progress further in this way. 90% should be able to reach a passing standard. Especially if you narrow the differences between children who enter your class at the age of 4 to 7.

When you talk of a gap in your international school. How big a gap?
What % of your students are not going to pass the GCSE equivalent qualification at all? And how do the parents feel about that?

Namenick,

Yes. Also before secondary. I don't think you can cope with secondary without understanding place value and division.

I agree that no solution would be without trade-offs, but grade retention at some key stages would allow to keep the access to good qualifications open and maximise the overall utility, i.e. outcomes, efficiency etc.

Absence of some skills at the age of 4 becomes a bigger problem at the age of 6 and an even bigger problem at the age of 11 and so on. So it is better for these children to address that first.

Retention at key stages of development for a small proportion of children is a better trade-off than charging ahead in full knowledge these children won't make it to good GCSE and beyond.

I think retention in early years would reduce the proportion of strugglers later. So it will not be like 35%. It would also solve the problem of the more able, if they start at 4.

I also think for the 2-3% of genuinely gifted there could be other options available in secondary.

And concerning PE and PSE, some of those children in primary are less mature anyway.

Concerning Further Maths, the French model does not depress maths excellence. Equivalent is Bac Scientific, which 27.5% pass. Grade 19/20 is probably as rare as 98% raw mark grade 9.

The case of two additional years of maths after Bac is irrelevant - Not additional money, they would be spent anyway, as it is a very specific case of being first two years of the Master course in selective Granges Ecoles.

*Adalind - that sounds very fair

Maisy - sad for the lack of continuity but good that you look out for each other (must be frustrating for teachers who know their subject but struggle with poor behaviour). At least the poor kids who want to learn in the disruptive set will not lose out too much.

Marco - I think cakes says that sets exacerbate differences even if they already exist for whatever reason.

Cakes - agree that retention in early years is very sensible. You seem to object less to grade retention as a means of reducing variability and improving teaching efficiency. Maybe retention before secondary school might also be beneficial? The downsides would lie in school sport and PSE (do teachers think there are any other downsides)?

Late to the party
My dd's school doesn't set until year 9.
Year 7 & 8 they are encouraged to love learning.

I am going to repeat my previous post as I am still waiting for cakes to answer it.

@cakesandtea
I teach in an International School. We don't set until the equivalent of year 10. Yet there are gaps in knowledge and understanding in year 10 and also in year 7.

I assumed this was due to the students being of different ability. They have been taught in mixed ability classes all their lives and they are a range nationalities.

Please impart your wisdom on why there is this divide?
Just to repeat, they have always been taught in mixed ability classes.

The other result is they were able to increase the pass rate at 15 to 90%, and at 18 to 80% of population.

Is the French system norm-referenced or criterion referenced?

Namenic
It's the same old story of years of underfunding and a shortage of staff.

Generally schools will make mid year changes if need be. (E.g. I've lost some lovely classes that i'd got settled and dping immaculately in January because it became clear a colleague was struggling with a class). The response (after other avenues were tried) was to swap in an experienced teacher and/or someone known not to take nonsense to try and prevent a sink group forming.

It comes down to how many staff you've got and what strengths they have. E.g. a former colleague at one school would be terrible teaching a top set at my current school but there are colleagues in my department who are never given the nurture groups because they don't have that strength. If you have a full department of good staff you have more flexibility than if you are a school that struggles to recruit.

Namenic,

Most people will agree that earlier intervention is better - (like cakes’ example from France). Have you considered that additional resources for bottom set/table may be more efficient than spreading these over the whole class? Does the targeted intervention in France counts as a ‘set’?

What French policy seem to be is to enable some children to mature, to develop the necessary neurocognitive skills in Early years, in a formal compulsory preschool curriculum before they enter into the the proper Primary school. Their data show that this reduced the number of children who get behind vs peers in class at the age of 6 and 7, which was the biggest problem, but also reduced the number of children who can't keep up throughout the school career. The intervention as it were is to retain selected children in early years to help them to develop to the level at which they would cope better in school. It is a structured early years curriculum, not baby sitting.

The disadvantage for summer borns throughout the school career is well documented. But there is a broader scope for differences in maturity and neurocognitive 'readiness' - children on autism spectrum and other neurodevelopmental disorders for example.

It is a matter for neurocognitive scientist, but it is well known that huge development takes place in the brain between 4 and 7. Language , executive functioning for example. Certain mix of cognitive skills is necessary to cope well, to keep up in mixed ability education. The French seem to keep some children in EY before they develop this mix.

French 'normal' year of starting primary school is 6. But their policy seem to be to enable some children to start first year of primary school at 4, some at5, at 6, at and even at 7 (1.2%). As a result all the year groups are mixed age, but might actually have a more narrow spread of 'ability'. The class constituted like this is a set of sort, and it copes better with the pace of the curriculum throughout. Maybe a small fraction of the most able can also skip a year forward, I am not sure, there is a handful of 15 years olds starting university, though I am not suggesting to do this.

The result of this policy seem to be rapid, drastic reduction in the number of children who can't keep up with the mixed ability class.
The other result is they were able to increase the pass rate at 15 to 90%, and at 18 to 80% of population. It resulted in better outcomes for more children. They still have a smaller group of 7% of children who fall behind at some stage of school and may even leave school at 18 without any qualifications (Clavinova's 100k), but this is a smaller minority (10%-12.5% of population) then before.

Namenic, my school tends to mix it up in science. So a child who has the head of chemistry won't also have the head of physics and biology. Equally, no child will have NQTs for all three sciences. And all teachers have a mix, so while I may have top set year 10 I also have bottom set year 9. There are also sometimes specific requests, such as the head of biology wanting set 3 for year 10 because there's a couple of difficult characters and he is good at keeping them in line.

I really must remember to thank the person who sorts it all out, timetabling seems like a nightmare job!

Biolog Though what you have just said could be a very strong argument against setting.

My DD wants to learn at school, but she is never going to make it into top sets. It isn't fair/right that she should have a disproportionate amount of poorly behaved pupils in her class. If anything she needs fewer poorly behaved to help her concentrate, and have the teacher time.

(As it is behaviour at her school is pretty good, and setting often means top sets have more pupils in than lower sets, so strugglers get the attention they need which also helps behaviour.)

Maisy
Thanks. Useful to hear from the front line. I expect teachers would like to do much more but are struggling with lack of staff and resources. A bit like nhs.

From my personal experience setting worked for me. Not because I was more intelligent but because it meant the behaviour in the higher set was better and therefore less stressful to learn.
I got absolutely fed up being called a snob at school for wanting to learn. Being in the top set for things helps avoid that.

Namenic
It will depend on the staff available in my experience.
If a school has a department full of qualified subject specialists then they are in a better position to try to match staff to groups.
If you have a school that has 2 qualified specialists and the rest unqualified or non specialists then there's a much trickier decision to be made. In my experience the top and bottom tend to get the preferential staffing when there's difficult decisions to make on staff and groups.
In the last few schools I've worked in it was also common for the heads of department to teach classes that were borderline or had a bit of catching up to do.

In my experience it comes down to schools making the best decision they can for tjeir cohorts with the staff they have and their contexts. There's no easy solution.

myrtleWilson Cake shaped rabbit hole
Thank you for all your support. Y11 parents are usually awesome.