Setting for Maths in Year 7

Am not a teacher so have no real contribution to make but I do wonder if this is likely to be the OPs longest thread but one that has largely ended up down a cake shaped rabbit hole. But as the mother of a yr11 girl, I'll say thank you teachers for all you do

Cakes you have ignored my question about the spread of ability in a school with no setting. Or don't my students count because they are foreign, and not even European?

Cakes - you can have sets/tables AND give additional help to people on the bottom table/class (eg additional teaching assistant). If you are saying that inevitably sets mean that upper sets get the best teachers or more teacher time - I don’t know - maisy?

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’?

AdalindShade
maisy, you're wrong on your last point. If there was a magic bullet which solved every issue regarding pupil outcomes, teachers would simply ignore it cos we're too wedded to our own preferences to want the best for the pupils in front of us.
Naturally!
I don't know about you but when I came into teaching it had nothing to do with wanting to encourage children to achieve their potential at all. I just wanted an easy life and to condemn 80% of the students in front of me to a life of despair and misery.

Gosh cantkeepawayforever, surely you aren't still trying to point out the obvious point about norm referenced qualifications? I thought we established pages and pages ago that 120% of students should be above a norm referenced threshold and that should be achieved without any manipulation or change to specifications/qualifications whilst also requiring us to use our imaginations to make changes.
You don't get it do you, it doesn't matter what nuanced understanding you have or what practical experience you have, sets are always always wrong, ability grouping is always wrong and the existence of anything acknowledging different levels of ability is causing mental health issues and unemployment. Hell itself will open up and it'll be because someone somewhere once was given a differentiated worksheet.
(And now I'll get into trouble for using hyperbole because in some weird world hyperbole and sarcasm is proof that you love making children fail)

Sorry, to add more detail again:

Year 6 SATs are neither criterion-referenced nor particularly well norm-referenced.

The 'expected standard' is an arbitrary politically-driven measure, announced by the Secretary of State each year. It is not a measure of a standard reached, of a body of knowledge gained, a percentage in well-standardised tests...or anything, really. It is arbitrary....

So I don't sit there thinking 'X is of average or higher ability, but I will group them, in this lesson, with a few others needing some adult support, just because I want to restrict their progress.'

I can, and do, think 'Y is finding this particular topic very hard, and would benefit from some extra time in a small group, as well as support in class. I don't know whether it is due to their specific learning difficulties, or just it's an area they find hard - but we'll all work together, using all the tools at our disposal, to help them overcome their difficulty'.

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%.

6 years old children (of average or higher ability) at the bottom table

can you explain why any competent teacher would place these children omn that table? It is in no teacher's interest to artificially depress a child's attainment by restricting what they can learn.

If you are talking about un-diagnosed SEN - I am neither a paediatrician nor an Ed Psych. I pass evidence and observations onto both types of professional, but I cannot diagnose SEN. I can provide support to overcome it - and do - but I do not have the training to diagnose why a specific child might have an undiagnosed barrier to their learning.

(To be fair, the government will allow the percentage who are allowed to pass rise a little bit for each year they are in power. However, if this carries on for too long, then the next party in power will talk about 'grade inflation' and set a new, lower, percentage who can 'pass', against a different curriculum, and start the game again)

Neither SATs nor GCSEs are criterion-referenced exams. The proportion passing DOES NOT SHOW WHAT STANDARD CHILDREN HAVE REACHED. It is set by the government, and as a result it is impossible to infer what absolute standard pupils have reached at all.

there is an underlying culture that the top table deserves all stops being pulled out, while the bottom table shouldn't hold anyone back and could settle for functional skills in adult education

You are very welcome to come to visit my classroom any time - mixed ability seating predominantly, with some flexible grouping lesson by lesson - to see whether your perception that 'the top table deserves all stops being pulled out' has ANY basis in reality.

I would say that, as no-one is ever going to say 'actually my child has exactly their fair share of teacher attention - no more and no less', I settle for equal numbers / proportions of parents, over time, complaining about 'not stretching the most able' / 'neglecting the middle ability' / 'settling for low attainment from those of lower ability' / 'not caring about children with SEN'.

It would obviously be NICER if everyone said 'yes, i can see you're doing your best to balance the needs of all children', but since that is utopia, I'll settle for a balanced diet of complaints...

Interestingly 64% tally with the 65% who pass GCSE English and Maths. Norm referenced exams...do you understand these now, cakes? We have explained it enough? The government sets the proportion of children who 'pass'. It is not a measure of an absolute standard, but rather the measure of what the government will allow.

If you define what 90% of children should be able to do at the age of 10 /11, and set tests which are referenced to that absolute standard', then 90% of children will pass, and that proportion will rise slightly each year.

However, if you set a curriculum, and then set tests which only 64% of children are ALLOWED to pass, then only 64% will pass, REGARDLESS OF WHAT STANDARD THE OTHER 36% HAVE REACHED.

Noble commented that teacher perceptions affect outcomes greatly. Surely this would play out massively in Primary school, where children are ranked neatly in tables and there is an underlying culture that the top table deserves all stops being pulled out, while the bottom table shouldn't hold anyone back and could settle for functional skills in adult education for £200, as Namenic put very articulately.
In a set up like this 6 years old children (of average or higher ability) at the bottom table don't have the same chances.

Cantkeep,

If those groups in primary were not working as sets, but as additional opportunities to attain the required standard, then all but the bottom 10% of ability or severe SEN would reach the required standard at the end of Primary.

Only 64% reach the required standards in SATs . That means about 10% of children with average ability fall short, not to mention the further 15% of those with low-average ability.
Interestingly 64% tally with the 65% who pass GCSE English and Maths. So clearly the main damage is done in Primary school.
Those who fail SATs are mostly already outside the threshold for good GCSEs. Sets entrench and amplify the gaps in learning year on year, they prevent mobility upwards for those who develop later, like recently diagnosed DC with SEN.

Please engage with my post of Sun 11-Nov-18 07:48:42

wedded to setting/segregating children into academic ability groups (rather than making differentiated work available according to need in same classrooms)

Marytuda, cakes regards differentiated work in the same classroom, for example grouping within the classroom to facilitate e.g. access to adult support or particular work / resources, as setting as well.

Hence the fact that she states that setting in primary starts from reception, whereas in fact physical setting in different rooms is rare in average-sized primaries and even then only in upper primary.

I THINK this means that she thinks that, at least in primary, everyone in the classroom should be taught as a whole, all the time, and always given the same work - because any type of pragmatic day by day grouping to facilitate support / differentiation is described by Cakes as setting. At least, that's what i THINK she is saying. it's never been entirely clear.

maisy, you're wrong on your last point. If there was a magic bullet which solved every issue regarding pupil outcomes, teachers would simply ignore it cos we're too wedded to our own preferences to want the best for the pupils in front of us .

I'm a bit late to this one, but I'm a big fan of loose setting (I teach physics). In my current school, our students are settled from year 9 but can move sets right up until February of year 11 for science. And there's always cross over - if the highest mark in set 2 is below the lowest mark in set 1 questions start to be asked. Borderline kids get moved up / down through discussion with the parent and child. I certainly know a few who prefer being at the top of a lower set and benefit from the self-confidence, and a few who prefer the pace of a higher set.

Catchment two

marytuda
There isn't such thing as a 'top set family'.

Some of the most chilled out parents I've worked with have been 'top set' parents and some of the most ridiculous 'prioritise my child above all else' have come from mixed ability.

If we're going to start bringing family background into it then you start looking at trends (e.g parents with more affluent backgrounds tend to do not educationally, be more involved in their child's education etc.) There is a literacy gap from 3 years old.

There's probably more pushy parents (in a nice way) in my mixed ability groups in catchment 1 than I ever had teaching top sets in catchment too.

(Again, this is someone who has taught sets and mixed in a range of contexts and thinks grouping is complex and it's for schools to make the best decision based on their cohort, staff and subject)

It's almost getting to the point on this thread where despite endless "yeah but... here's cherry picked references" we're getting to 'ok so maybe it is more complex, but sets make it all worse because they just do'.

Put it this way (and I say this to almost every education debate when one side tends to hold entrenched positions), if there was a magic bullet that would magically solve every issue regarding pupil outcomes, surely every school on the country would be doing it.

Cakes, still think you are spot on. Haven't been through this entire thread, nor do I have the head for detail on this that you have (as I stated many pages earlier.) But your points about top-set parents skewing the system to suit their families at expense of everyone else is so true. Yes, of course there are many other factors involved in how kids turn out, but an education system wedded to setting/segregating children into academic ability groups (rather than making differentiated work available according to need in same classrooms) only compounds them.

It is also a myth that top sets somehow accelerate progress. If they were going faster, they would be graduating from university at 18.

The top sets are better prepared for A level maths. At A level setting is much rarer due to smaller class sizes. And its not typical to go to university until you have 3 A levels and are ready to leave home. And not everyone who excels in maths will study maths at degree level. So your arguement doesnt make sense.

It is also a myth that top sets somehow accelerate progress. If they were going faster, they would be graduating from university at 18.

Or perhaps they graduate from university at 21 with stronger degrees, on average? After having gotten stronger A-levels at 18, on average.

maisy and borntobequiet
It is difficult to know when kids are ready and interested in these financial things.

It took me a while to understand the reasons for why banks gave interest to savers (I think I had to grasp inflation first). The numerical calculation for compound interest is straightforward but understanding the whole context in which it is used is harder.

Functional skills maths seems very useful. From what I have read, marking seems to be criterion as opposed to norm referenced which is a good idea. Maybe it should have more questions on fractions or compound interest, but overall it Sounds like a much better benchmark for most careers than the gcse material. I guess kids who have weaker language skills may struggle, but I hope it does get more widely used as an alternative qualification.

@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.

^CAP may account for the 10% who have not entered Bac.
732,700 + 87,975 = 820,675, that is 13 thousands more than the population born in 1998^
So clearly there is double counting somewhere. Maybe some CAP students also enter Bac

100,000 young people unaccounted for here

www.thelocal.fr/20171208/why-are-so-many-french-kids-failing-at-school

The article was written in December 2017;

Every year in France 100,000 young people leave the school system with no qualifications, a new study has revealed
The study carried out by France's national council responsible for assessing the school system (CNESCO) showed that more than 10 percent of school pupils are leaving school without passing any exams

That means that they don't have their all-important baccalaureate qualification nor the French professional aptitude diploma called the CAP

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/secondary/3419925-Free-Financial-Education-textbooks-sent-to-secondary-schools-by-Martin-Lewis

These will be useful then.

borntobequiet
I agree.
I'm confident enough to sort my own mortgage and finances out but that's totally different to confidently explaining those concepts and principles to teens. Just like someone might be a confident reader but that's different to teaching literary analysis to GCSE.

I'm with you because some students need that consolidation (and as you've highlighted, there are other factors behind the outcomes)

Yes it makes a huge difference if the tutor is confident and knows their stuff. I used to enjoy teaching PSHE and Citizenship because I’m fairly well informed anyway but I also liked finding things out.
Have realised that my last post returned to the theme of this thread: the reason many of my learners have trouble with the basics is because they have been pushed, rushed and overloaded, and not revisited the basics sufficiently. This is not the fault of the teachers, but of the curriculum. Setting ameliorates this somewhat, but not entirely.