Setting for Maths in Year 7

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.

I meant to say that 'flexible groupings' - whole class teaching but with flexibility based on the progress of each child within each lesson - seems now to be the primary school norm EXCEPT for the very extreme (e.g. children with EHCP + 1:1 support working 4+ years behind will usually work on highly simplified versions of the same topic - so adding 1 to a small number rather than column addition of decimals).

Cantkeep I know primaries near me combine years 4-6 for maths and then "set" up them. Also I know of another that does something similar with 5-6. It's not traditional setting as there isn't the staff capacity but it's a start.

I can't imagine trying to teach a group of 30 kids with a range of abilities from grade u - 9. Hats off to anyone that can make progess happen in that situation.

Education is public service for the children, for all the children. It is difficult to see why it is OK to fail 35% for the 'convenience' of the teachers. Are you really advocating that, Noble?

I remember reading in another thread teachers' protestations that they do care and feel accountable for all children, however when asked to make it work for all children, they find it difficult, and walk out to find another job... Do teachers in Finland also walk out?

I am sorry, but I can't begin to imagine how teaching to teach mixed ability would reduce the number of teachers who apply for training. The applicants apply because of the overall appeal of the teaching career, not on the basis of the technicality their are not even aware of.

DS2 is at an academically selective independent. They don't set for maths in year 7.

They do in year 8.

Even primary school set for Maths from approx y4.

The average sized primary has 1 class per year group, so 'setting', in the sense of different teaching going on in different rooms, can't happen.

'Fixed groupings', with separate work, within a single classroom, does happen, but are increasingly regarded as limiting the progress of some children.

However, primary teachers are trained to teach mixed ability classes, which is perhaps the difference between them and secondary teachers - we are, after all, by definition 'Jacks of all trades'.

Obviously they are not going to change their minds about the setting if the decision is already made

It may not have been the maths department who made the decision, it may have been foisted upon them and well-informed parents pushing back will give them ammo to fight back.

Ask when they do set for maths, hopefully it would be Y8 the latest. Before then, ask what they do to ensure that each pupil is stretched and challenged and how they propose exposing your child to higher content in a class containing children who may struggle with basic arithmetic (they may have a separate class for the weakest). And ask what training the teachers have to teach in this way and how it differs to when they are teaching in sets.

Cakes what happens to little 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? None of the students win in that situation, they are so far apart they can't even comprehend the other ones thinking.
This is what would happen in mixed ability Maths. Or you would end up with a class within a class, teacher running around like a blue arsed fly and no one achieving much. Even primary school set for Maths from approx y4.

The evidence isn’t strongly in favour either way, cakes. In which case it makes sense to go the way that is easiest for teachers given the appalling shortage of trained maths teachers and the high rate of burnout.

No one benefits from not having qualified maths teachers, not high, middle or low ability.

No training for teachers everyone say mixed ability teaching requires training, all teaching requires training, so if you only train mixed ability teaching, there would be no difficulties and all pupils would benefit. The problem is set training in first place.

The thing is, teachers saying they would leave schools where it is inconvenient for them to teach does not really address the core issue of the outcomes for the majority included those left behind. I don't think a teacher declaring they don't want to teach is entitled to talk on behalf of all students.

Sets only benefit those at the top and disadvantage those in the middle and at the bottom. Those at the top would be at the top in any system. There is no overall advantage to anyone.

What does "very strong comprehensive and very strong Maths results" actually means? What percentage does not get grade 4?

Maths teacher here. Totally agree with Noble. I have taught mixed ability in an underperforming school which went from setting to mixed ability to improve results (based on some 'research' and an SLT with no knowledge of Maths). Results got worse. No training for teachers - it was a nightmare. If my current school changed its policy (set from week 1 based on SATS and review setting after test in October) I would leave and find another job. It benefits no student. I must say my current school - very strong comprehensive and very strong Maths results would NEVER do this.

DCs at a high achieving comp. No setting for maths in year 7 BUT there are some extra sessions (maybe 1-2 week) for the most able children. Proper setting from year 8 I think and don't think it really mattered in the greater scheme of things. It is after all a marathon up to GCSE not a sprint.

Am I right that the French system teaches more maths content to all and more children pass?

Yes, maths ability is regarded as the most important measure of intelligence in France and it's taught up to age 17/18. However, according to our French friends, their education system is "all work and no play" - longer school day, much more homework and pupils are often asked to repeat a year - more so than in the USA. From next year, the compulsory school starting age is being lowered to age 3.

In Finland no one is pushed to become great, but no one gets left behind either
fillingmymap.com/2015/06/08/the-three-real-reasons-for-finlands-high-pisa-scores/

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/29e4a856-bad7-11e6-8b45-b8b81dd5d080

A brief Google shows why I would not be holding the French system up as a great example of Maths teaching.

If the 35% did answer the questions, then the grade boundaries would be higher.

Then there would be a robust discussion why boundaries are set at 65%, and not 95%

What percentage of Finns pass the equivalent of GCSEs in Finland?

I understand 80% of the French pass the BAC, which is equivalent to A levels

This is because being "better" at Maths requires more content in a way that other subjects don't. Take English, everyone learns the same books, some can develop their thinking towards higher grade answers. Maths is different. To get a grade 9 you need to cover (most) of the high level content. To achieve a grade 4 you don't. Therefore there are students that will never learn the sine rule, they don't need to, it won't be on their exam and frankly it's highly unlikely they will ever use it in life.

This is the manifesto of the set system. It is wrong and false on all levels. There is no reason to not teach all content to all pupils and Maths is not different. It is absurd. What do European systems do? Am I right that the French system teaches more maths content to all and more children pass? What about Finland? Are the French more able? Education system without sets teach all students all chapters in all subjects, the result would lay on a bell curve and that would reflect ability and effort and all that, but ultimately more students would reach required standard and all students would get equal opportunity. People in this country actually think their DC have equal opportunity. People believe there is no selection at 11. Yet, I doubt many realise that if their DC are not passing SATs at the age of 11, they likely to not have a shot at good GCSEs because of the sets system - they will never be taught the same chapters, and possible not even chapters to get a 5. This is not equal opportunity.

And you clearly don't understand norm referencing. If the 35% did answer the questions, then the grade boundaries would be higher.

Cakesandtea I'm sure you've had this debate elsewhere previously. You clearly have an axe to grind. Setting works brilliantly for most students in Maths. This is because being "better" at Maths requires more content in a way that other subjects don't. Take English, everyone learns the same books, some can develop their thinking towards higher grade answers. Maths is different. To get a grade 9 you need to cover (most) of the high level content. To achieve a grade 4 you don't. Therefore there are students that will never learn the sine rule, they don't need to, it won't be on their exam and frankly it's highly unlikely they will ever use it in life.

OP I'd be questioning their evidence, and asking for evidence that mixed ability is better.

^norm referenced GCSE grading.
E.g. only a set % can get a 4 or higher, a 7 or higher etc.

Whatever issues you have with setting (and both setting and mixed ability have pros and cons), don't try to blame setting for GCSE outcomes.^

Yes, norm reference is part of the problem, but also the fact that those 35% can't answer enough of exam questions. It is not like they all answer 12 out 13 exam questions, but with subtle difference in depth...

I don't understand how you can pay for schools and teachers to teach a child of a 'normal' ability from reception to year 11, and result with that child not being able to answer more that 20% of questions, not being able to mean the most basic reference standard as GCSE?

On a conveyor belt no one would accept that 35% of production goes to waste.

Obsessing with the difference in ability is nonsense. The best performing educational systems don't obsess on selection, but run methods that works for everyone, not just select few at the expense of the majority.

The whole obsession with ability is historic in this country, because initially state education for the poor was introduced based on ability, by selection. The underlying value system is that those not selected don't deserve education, they should stay manual labour. The rich on the other hand can afford to educate their offsprings of all ability. The times have changed though, in 21 century we don't need unskilled manual labour - many of them are on benefits. This is a very regressive outdated value system that waste human talent and is unsustainable. When AI and robots are poised to replace even white collar jobs, throwing away the talent of 35% to rot on benefits is absurd. Obsessing about the top set and the most able serves well only top 2% at huge human and financial expense for the 98%.

The setting is exactly the evil that lays underneath the poor outcomes and very expensive education system where only 65% or so get good GCSE in key subjects at the end.
That has sod all to do with setting and everything to do with norm referenced GCSE grading.
E.g. only a set % can get a 4 or higher, a 7 or higher etc.

Whatever issues you have with setting (and both setting and mixed ability have pros and cons), don't try to blame setting for GCSE outcomes.

Kids are not all of a similar ability. That’s nonsense.

Ability is a biological factor that is homegenious internationally.
In England there may be a 7 year spread in ability which is unusual internationally.

That is not ability, but the spread in attainment resulting from setting starting in Reception. It pulls negligible differences in natural ability apart, spreads them ever farther apart based on sets teaching socioeconomic advantage of pushy middle class parents

And there’s bog-all evidence to show that mixed ability is a fantastic way to teach maths either - as summarised in the Mark McCourt blog I linked to above, the evidence is weak and fuzzy. Dylan Wiliam (I think) reckons that the studies that have been done are rubbish anyway as they don’t look at teacher deployment.

One other thing to take into account is that if any studies have been done outside the UK, e.g. in the US, then mixed ability means something very different, as their classes are more homogenous in ability due to the use of grade-retention (resitting failed classes). In England there may be a 7 year spread in ability which is unusual internationally.

But in England maths teachers are mostly trains to teach sets. It requires an entirely different pedagogy to teach mixed ability and teachers need a lot of training and a huge new set of resources. This rarely happens. Teachers then end up teaching to the middle.

The setting is exactly the evil that lays underneath the poor outcomes and very expensive education system where only 65% or so get good GCSE in key subjects at the end. Education systems without setting, such as in Finland, achieve much better outcomes for all segments of students at lower costs and with less collateral damage in broken lives of pupils with SEN and huge welfare benefit bills because people don't have the skills.

Setting only benefits the very few at the top, but those parents have much more powerful voices and everyone likes to believe that their DC are 'extremely able' even when they are actually average. The whole education system in this country is designed and run by people for people who want their DC to get to Oxbridge, at the expense of everyone else. Nobody speaks for the losers of the system. On MN mentioning the needs of achieving better outcomes for average students or those with average ability who are unjustly for various specific circumstances, such as unmet SEN, in lower sets is always ridiculed and shouted at. It is always satisfying to have someone lower on the ladder to kick in the teeth.