Setting for Maths in Year 7

noblegiraffe
I'm with you.
I taught a low set and had 100% A*-C and a great value added one year. The sad reality is that the impact of my children exceeding expectations meant someone else elsewhere didn't get that grade. That's the trade off. Then you get into the fact that schools need the results to shut ofsted up, but there's not enough grades going to shut ofsted up. Add in the demand for all schools to be good or outstanding (understandably), but that can't be squared with the fact statistically it can't happen as there's not enough outcomes to get every school good/outstanding. Even if overall performance went up in exams then the boundaries would change.

Equally, there's a difference between having a literacy and numeracy level to make your next steps at level 3 and the new requirements of the reformed GCSEs. They are not the same (to anyone who knows anything about the new specs). It came up on another thread recently.

There's issues in the system (as with any system) which most teachers will acknowledge and do their very best within, but we don't mindlessly throw around but what if 35% of digestive biscuits never had the chance to be chocolate digestive?

cakes I disagree.

1. My DD2's self esteem was 'damaged' in primary where there were no sets.
2. It doesn't matter whether the 2hrs is solid or broken up. DC-A still needs 20 mins to grasp and embed, and DC-B still needs more like 4 hours. DC-B might need 12x20mins but the total is till the same.
3. relieved to see her DC allocated to a lower set/secondary modern; most would be frantically tutoring to get their DC moved up as far as poss. I'm not sure that is accurate. Nor is marytuda's concept of abandonment in "sink" schools/bottom sets at least for her. - I am pleased to see my DD in appropriate sets where she gets a correctly paced learning experience. I can then choose to supplement at home as much as DD is capable of doing (which isn't much), and slowly but surely, dd2, like dd1 did is progressing upwards.

Maybe I'm lucky because our comp is good. it doesn't abandon people in lower sets. It works damn hard to help everyone progress. Everyone from the straight A / 7-9 pupils to the strugglers gets opportunities to do well.

Neither of my DCs will get Ebacc. DD1 didn't - she did 2 MFLs but dropped History to 'save' her English Language result. DD2 won't either as she won't do an MFL. Many prior lower attainers will, for whatever reason, be struggling with English, and thus doing an MFL well will be beyond them. (NB better MFL teaching at primary could improve this but would need a massive change). If I'm going to spend time coaching my DD on spellings it is going to be English ones not French.

Finally The problem with lower set is that they are locked out of better grades after SATs. In a good school that isn't the case. However, you could rephrase it. 'The problem with lower sets is they are generally filled by lower ability children with lower prior attainment. This makes it an extremely tough task to expect them to make the even faster progress that would be needed to get them to the same grades as brighter-higher attainment kids'.

The problem of poor schools won't be solved by forcing mixed ability teaching. However, the problem of grammar / secondary modern which prevents top secondary modern kids from having access to the same opportunities could be solved by going fully comp.

And let’s be aware, there are many that can’t deal with decimal fractions, don’t understand place value, can’t round to one or two decimal places. I see plenty of them.
And ordinary fractions - the most common question I get asked in my (retirement) job in FE is, “how do I find a third of something?”. When I ask them, how do you think you should do it, they generally respond “halve it and then halve it again”.
It’s not that they haven’t been taught. They just don’t get it.
If you don’t get decimals and fractions, just about everything in Maths is a closed book to you.

Students most definitely aren't locked out of higher grades due to setting. If they are achieving well, they will move up sets.

The specific example is not artificial and is so close to my experience of teaching mixed ability maths. There comes a point where the content being taught isn't appropriate for all. If you can't add decimals, why would I try and teach you trigonometry?!
Why would I teach grades 5-9 content to a child who will take a foundation paper? How would they access the Higher content? I'm better off using regular retrieval and helping them achieve the best possible result for their ability.

The difference isn't how students are taught (in a lot of cases) instead it is students ability to retain and process information.

You've clearly had a bad experience cakes. That doesn't mean that all setting is bad.

TeenTimesTwo, with respect, I think the specific example in your conundrum is artificial. Young children have an attention span of a few minutes, about 11 mins in year 6, I suppose 15-20 min in Y7-8. Nobody can stay 100% focussed learning a concept for 2 hours solid, especially DC with SEN. The actual useful time when the concept is learned is 10-20 min for any child. Even for those with lower processing speed.

For DC with SEN the key point is their needs must be met. It is in the how, not for how long. The setting is most damaging for DC with SEN and normal ability. They are left behind early on, because their needs are not recognised, because of absence of provisions, inadequate provisions and delays in provisions. They lose confidence, fail to develop some skills at the appropriate age. The gap with the peers in the top sets becomes too big, like jumping onto a speeding train.

The problem of your DC-B is not the two hours which you quote for the sake of argument, it is how she is taught / her needs are met, and the gap created due to setting. She wouldn't be there had there be no sets. A child feels more confident in lower set because their confidence was damaged by the setting system, because she feels left behind. The key point of no setting is to not let that happen, so they all can progress at similar speed.

Teen, was it you mentioning your DC is very bright, but is better in low set? If your DC is bright, she should be achieving grades 5-9, right? Do they teach the chapters for grades 5-9 in bottom set?
What are GCSE results in your DC school low set? How many get grade 4 and above? How many get 7, or 9?
Low prior attainers are placed in lower set. Last time I checked, nationally, only 0.5% low prior attainers got Ebacc, only 10% got English & Maths at grade 4, where progress 8 is above average. You can check your DC school.

The problem with lower set is that they are locked out of better grades after SATs.
In schools with below average progress 8, zero % of low prior attainers get GCSE at grade 4, so their chances are set at the age of 11.

Imagine an NHS surgeon failing 35% of operations and telling patients to show how it is done...

Well Noble, you are the expert, you figure it out, I am the customer, I want the result... it is done in other countries. You said it's about training to teach mixed ability, so train, and stop now all forms of hidden setting in Primary, a when teachers are trained, in secondary. And teach more Physics from early age to help to understand and apply maths as in this link. And maybe perhaps going to uni at the age of 19 like in Finland is better - you have time to learn all the advanced maths and there are fewer NIETS.
There.

fillingmymap.com/2015/06/08/the-three-real-reasons-for-finlands-high-pisa-scores/

I’d love to see these armchair experts teach and show us how it’s done. So easy to pontificate from the sidelines. Not engage with the detail? Of course not.

I think cakes is spot on . . I'm not going to engage with the detail - 35%, 98%, maths teaching, whatevs - but her general point that an education system for all built around classroom selection done as early and as much as possible is a contradiction in terms. Notwithstanding Teen's experience, setting is basically done to benefit the already advantaged at expense of everyone else; Teen is one of tiny minority of engaged parents on MN or elsewhere relieved to see her DC allocated to a lower set/secondary modern; most would be frantically tutoring to get their DC moved up as far as poss.
Cakes is absolutely right that the gap between the most/least able can only be exacerbated by the already-ahead (top sets) capitalising on their existing advantages, which are very significantly linked to social background.
To use a personal example; my now Y7 DC gets a load of expensive music lessons courtesy of general taxpayer . . Why? Well, largely because as a pushy and relatively time-rich parent I was in a position to exploit his primary school musical education to the max in a way that less advantaged parents couldn't possibly. The gap in respective musical progress between their kids and mine can only widen from here on . . and the same happens with academic ability; the well-resourced push their already advantaged kids from "top" primary tables into "the best schools" etc etc.
Those kids (of which mine is one) wouldn't be significantly disadvantaged wherever they went; but the "left behind" would greatly benefit from more general, better resourced inclusion rather than abandonment in "sink" schools/bottom sets.
And I think everyone's (parents, kids . .) mental health would benefit from a less ongoing-competitive environment . . . without compromising standards. Standards might even - hey, there's a thought! - rise with an increase in general well-being.

I agree teen.
The nature of the subject matters too, and how the curriculum is structured, what the cohort is like, and what the department staffing situation is like.

Personally, I like loosely streamed groups for my subject but not full sets (I can't stand the idea of moving groups every term because one child got an 8 on A Christmas Carol but this term was transactional writing and they got a 6 even though next term we are looking at Love and Relationships poetry so they'd be better judged by their last literature exam than language... it's a nightmare. But if you have sets and don't move then that opens cans of worms as well even if it's a non tiered paper and all classes are studying the same scheme of work).

If you're in a position with a strong department with the right training then mixed can work really well. If you've got a team half staffed with non specialists and you're struggling to recruit then mixed ability is probably going to hinder the top end whilst saving a non specialist or weaker member of staff from what may become a sink group. But then again, setting makes it easier on the differentiation front (even though sets require differentiation). But saying that, how do you allocate staff if you have sets because the top end need a strong subject specialist to stretch and the bottom end need a strong subject specialists to help boost them to where they need to be.

There's so many factors which influence what the best decision for grouping is.

I do actually believe there is a very good argument for not setting formally or rigidly in infants and lower juniors. This is because differing attainment at those ages can be massively impacted by home experiences and general maturity. And being labelled as less able at that young age can impact self esteem and willingness to try. (cf Outliers by Malcom Gladwell regarding sports people and other topics). So fluid groupings per topic can work very well.

But by later primary and secondary innate ability and work ethic show through and setting allows children to learn at a general pace appropriate to them. imo.

The idea that children achieve different educational outcomes because of setting, as opposed to because they have differing abilities (which is why they were set in the first place), is so bonkers as to strain all credulity, even in this credulous age.

Maysy, but you 'find' any argument that challenges the outcomes and goes against the conventional wisdom 'incoherent'.
Far from it.
I've said that there are pros and cons of setting and pros and cons of mixed ability teaching. I've also said there's room for improvement in all education systems.

What I refrain from doing (because it is ridiculous) is taking a position, repeat the same assertion multiple times, illogically compare across international systems in a selective way to prove my own axe grinding opinion.

Have the 35% been failed? Or have they just left school without a grade 4 in Maths. To me that isn't failure. It just shows there will always be some students for whom a grade 4 isn't achievable no matter how hard they (or their teachers) try.

The percentage of students who achieve a grade 4 at resit was 22% this year.

After further explanation of the French system it seems the 80% isn't a true figure.

The Finnish system gets all students through a basic level, no challenge for the top end. Is that fair?

The evidence against setting is ropey. The annecdata for setting in Maths is overwhelming YES!

You haven't dealt with teens conundrum above either.

I can accept that mixed ability may work for subjects such as history where content doesn't build, and questions can be answered at differing levels of sophistication.
I just really struggle to understand how it can work well for maths & science, where grasping and remembering concepts is so key.

cakes Can you solve the conundrum I posted at 20:09?

Maysy, but you 'find' any argument that challenges the outcomes and goes against the conventional wisdom 'incoherent'.

There are huge amounts of tutoring, pressure and MH issues in this country.

You have not engaged with core argument, just dodged it by calling me names :)

cakesandtea
There are areas of improvement in all education systems. You keep repeating 35% of people are being failed and then going on about setting. Then make the classic mistake that people make which is 'yeah but... look at a system that is totally different in multiple ways but they do the thing I like so I'll pretend that's the only variable that matters'.
Shanghai schools also do really well for maths. Equally a number of Asian set ups produce excellent results based on international tables (which have their own pros and cons). I assume you're happy with those systems of tutoring, night schools until 10/11pm, mental health issues etc? Or is it just systems that do what you think is best that should be emulated?

Your lack of nuanced understanding of education and inability to construct a coherent, reasonable argument is what I find a little amusing.

Oh and for the record I taugh my children loads before starting school and during their school years.

I'm glad I did, otherwise DS wouldn't even go to school bacsie he would totally refuse

My DD is bottom set for maths - because he's Dyslexic. He can't keep up with the top sets. He's bright and able. He can't retain the intern instructions of the top sets.

A slower pace in a smaller group allows him to achieve without feeling like a failure.

DD is top sets she keeps up and excels because she can.

Both would fail in middle sets because one would be bored and one would find it too quick.

Mix ability can work - for some but not all.

I am sure pass rate in the UK is 98% or something but what do I know.

Maisy, you are good at hyperbole, distorting and ridiculing what I say, but I don't find anything fun in perfectly able children being failed.

I have seen countless threads about parent's anger of DC not being in top set, but not many threads from parents hoping their DC will do better in bottom sets, 'at their pace'. Sets are only good for those for whom it is working. But bright DC will always end up up on top, in any system. Sets make no difference in outcomes at the top, they make huge difference in the lower half.

Why do the Finns and French and most other developed countries manage to teach more of their children to pass? How many developed countries have secondary school failure rate of 35%?

There are 3 different types of Bac qualification and 3 different types of upper secondary school.

^From age 15 students enter the Lycée period of education...
Academic pupils will move onto a lycée général or lycée technique, while less academic may go to a lycée professionnel^

10-15% of French students drop out every year, without passing any qualifications.

Oh, and students in Finland don't enter university until age 19 or 20 - their upper secondary education lasts for 3 years (16-19) and sometimes 4 years.

if you don't pass the exams you don't go up to the next year - so you have to understand at least some of the content for that year!

Dyslexic childrennwould struggle to pass these tests. Doesn't mean they don't understand.

It's possible that Jane can tell the time and Dave can do all the times tables - neither is more able in maths - it's just that they enjoyed learning that part of maths

If only. Then I wouldn't have needed to re do percentages with DD1 every year to y11. Or spend numerous occasions re-covering exothermic v endothermic reactions.
And DD2, 14, would know her left from right, would be able to tell the time, and know her times tables. (She can however solve simple quadratic equations).