Setting for Maths in Year 7

spot on Maisy!

P.s. teen that was sarcasm

TeenTimesTwo
You don't get it.
The very fact a child might grasp something quicker is proof that sets are evil.
Child 1 only gets something quicker because they've been in sets or groups and they only end up in those groups because they have been hot housed since the womb to get into top sets.

If there were no sets then no parents would do anything educational and all children would be roughly the same ability (except the 2% who are really clever but the rest are about the same). Without extra stimuli then all students could do the same work and that would prove that there isn't a bell curve at all because 95% of students would reach the same standard.

Keep up.

Wrt the French, what happens to students with SEN there? Is there a grammar style system whereby it's 80% of the kids who get into certain schools achieve that grade? I'd be suspicious of any system that claimed 80% of a whole cohort achieved A level maths.

Say DC-A can pick up and remember a concept in 20 mins, and it takes DC-B 2hrs and she forgets it and needs to be reminded twice more at an hour a time. (And no I don't think these are unreasonable times based on my DC).

So DC-A needs 20mins, DC-B needs 4hrs.
Repeat for every single maths concept.

How do you want to manage this?

1. Send DC-A off to learn another subject in the extra 3hr40mins? (So DC-B misses out on that other subject)
2. Make DC-B spend 'non-school hours' catching up? (So they miss out on extra curricular activities, and they quite probably need more down time than A anyway)
3. Just accept that over time DC-A will grasp concepts easier and gradually move ahead in maths?

Noble, you do argue that it is OK to leave 35% behind because it is easier that doing something different.

No. I work my arse off to get kids the best maths education that I can give them, and for me that is teaching them in sets. And I’m pretty good at it.

We used to teach mixed ability in Y7 and I was shit at it. I felt like I was failing both the top and bottom end while running myself ragged. Thankfully the rest of the department agreed and we switched to setting from near the start of Y7.

I know some teachers in another school who have just started teaching mixed ability and they are encountering the exact same problems I did. It was foisted on them, they had no training or preparation time and they are tearing their hair out. That’s not benefitting the pupils.

The French curriculum is rigid and limited - there is very little art, drama, music or sport and 30% of French children repeat a year at some point in their schooling.

No, no hot-housing. So could you answer the question. What should be done with that child in maths?

What you appear to be proposing is able children be prevented at learnjng at their own pace . Do you think that should hold for English too? No reading above yellow band because Johnny can't? No writing more than 3 sentences because Emily isn't ready yet?

Noble, you do argue that it is OK to leave 35% behind because it is easier that doing something different. Fundamentally, because nobody is counting the cost and is accountable for the failure of those 35%. The parents of those 35% in the main are less vocal and are not putting their feet down. It is the parents whose children are at the top that matter.

You would not argue that it is OK to scrap 35% of cars on the conveyor for not meeting quality standards, because increasing quality would require more skilled workers and that's effort, so let's not train our workers, let's not improve quality.

Those 35% of children are not widgets. They deserve every bit as much skill and investment and accountability from the public service. Why do 80% of French pass the BAC?

How did that happen? Is it because that child's parents hothoused that child since nursery to get into the top set, because it is how the system works? That's exactly the problem with sets
And this is the problem with trying to debate with you cakes. You're so obsessed with your way being the only way that you make sweeping claims to prove whatever point you're on.

I can't believe you're going as far as suggesting parents who do anytging educational with their child is proof sets are evil. Heaven forbid parents happen to have exposed them to things for a love of learning or to lay strong foundations in learning. Children develop at different rates.
What you seem to be suggesting repeatedly is that the bell curve doesnt exist and that able children should be held back because you don't think there's a spread of abilities.

Define normal ability. My bottom set last year was 100% students with SEN. Are they not normal? A third of my school has SEN, is that your 35%? You live in a dream land so far away from reality.

It is difficult to see why it is OK to fail 35% for the 'convenience' of the teachers.

They don’t fail for the convenience of teachers, don’t be ridiculous.

As I said, the evidence for mixed ability versus setting doesn’t fall heavily in favour either way. There is a workload and skill difference, mixed ability needs a lot of skill, that we are severely short of, and a bigger workload which would make us even shorter of teachers than we are already.

Losing teachers reduces quality hence there’s an argument for setting as both a teacher retention tool, and to lessen the effects of the shortage of qualified maths teachers.

And the child who can count in the hundreds in Y1

What percentage of those? How did that happen? Is it because that child's parents hothoused that child since nursery to get into the top set, because it is how the system works? That's exactly the problem with sets. What difference would it make in the big picture? The result that this child would achieve at the age of 16 would not be different to the result she would have achieved, had she not been tutored to count in nappies. Eventually GCSE are equivalent to other countries content at similar age, and so are A levels. Are UK GCSE students with grade 9 smarter than the French who get 19/20, or the Finns, but were not taught in sets? If that child is able, she will be on top of the cohort anyway. There is no need to sacrifice those in the middle and at the bottom to serve the competitive overdrive of a small fraction of parents.

For the genuinely gifted and talented 2%, you can have a selective advanced classes. But there is no need to drag down the life chances and leave behind the 35% by putting all children through sets.

And yes, I can't think of any reasonable explanation aside from the sets in primary for a child with 'normal' ability not being able to count to 20. The sets leave children behind since Reception, and thus create barriers for further progress. Those left behind can never catch up because of sets, they get further and further behind every year. They say horses can count to 4.

Cakes read further about the pisa questions, some curriculums are better designed to pass them than others.

With the greatest of respect the level of maths you are dealing with at primary spans in theory 6 years, to a secondary teacher that knowledge is about 2 years worth combined. The top end suffer from setting and you know it.

Little Johnny wasn't left behind, he had multiple interventions, small classes, 1:1, sadly his home life was such that he would not be able to retain knowledge. He isn't a one off. There are many Johnny's in secondary. You forget how much bigger secondary schools are.

They don't just hold you back in the US, they accelerate able students too. This is a mistake imo and can lead to all sorts of social problems (bit like leeping kids back in fact) but its certainly not an education system where mixed ability is king.

In the US and France there's an element of setting because 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!

Anecdote is not data but here goes anyway.

My DD2 in y9 is progressing better and happier at secondary due to setting.
She is no longer in classes where the bright children are calling out the answer before she has even processed the question.
She doesn't have others looking over her shoulder and saying her handwriting is messy or her spelling is rubbish.
The teachers teach at broadly her pace, and explain concepts using language she can process.

The school reviews setting regularly and moving sets is possible in maths even between year 10 and 11 (I know because DD1 did just that).

It is so depressing to feel you are at / near the bottom of every single class you have (academic, PE, tech/arts). DD no longer has that, and it is fantastic.

And the child who can count in the hundreds in Y1 cakes? Who can add, subtract, multiply and divide and is ready to explore fractions and geometry and negative numbers. What happens to them?
Oh wait, I know the answer to that one. They get to "master" the ability to count to 20 spin their wheels along with everyone else.

Sounds like teachers in Finland don't go anywhere near the content of a grade 9 equivalent by the content of that article. If you are happy with all students achieving less then go right ahead.

That's absurd, Finland does better in PISA and then there is Barcelona equivalence. There is equivalent level of content in all the EU education systems. UK GCSE's are not above in content that in Finland, lol.

Cakes, so you genuinely believe that the ONLY reason that Johnny can't count to 20 is because he was sitting at a different table within the same classroom (hearing the same teaching) early in his school career?

And FYI, yes of course we are held responsible - if I am to achieve my target for next year, my class has to, on average, make more than a year's progress,. each, in all core subjects.

DD year has sets from Y7

DS does not - however the tutor groups appear to be not as mixed as they once were!! High achievers are in 3 classes th lower achievers are in the bottom classes ..... appears to the schools way of getting round sets

Johnny who can't count to 20 accurately if he is sat next to Darren who is solving differential equations. They are both in year 11 so why not eh?

This is exactly because of sets, because of groups within class in primary school since Reception. Because that Johnny was left behind in year 1 for no good reasons. If teachers were made accountable to teach all children of normal ability to count to 20 in a proper year of primary school, they would not end up in year 11 not being able to access the material of GCSE.

I'm sure you've had this debate elsewhere previously.
We have (now you mentioned it I can see parallels to last time cake was in a discussion on sets).
I'm reasonably sure the last big thread on setting ended up with arguing that it's always the worst thing on earth, teachers set kids up to fail and general axe grinding regardless of multiple posters (on all sides of the fence) offering nuanced debate.

I am expected to make a year's worth of progress (at least) for every child in all core subjects - so at least expected level of previous year group to expected level of new year group. Preferably more - so more should leave me at expected who worked towards, and more at greater depth than arrived with me at expected levels for their age. Those working well below MAY make less progress, but the ideal is that they should make more to 'close the gap'.

Yes, we do work hard.

I teach a group of more than 30 children with an ability spread of around 9 years every day, in every subject.

Even taking the extreme outliers out, a spread of 4-5 years in terms of academic development would be normal in an upper primary classroom - so an average Y4 or Y5 classroom will contain children working at the 'expected level' for every year from about Y2 up to about Y7.

That's what we are trained to do.