Setting for Maths in Year 7

Why do you think the lower sets go at a slower pace?

Because of confidence crash, because gaps were allowed to open and not bridged, because basics were not properly retained before moving onto to the next topic. Because they were segregated into lower expectations where they are in a twilight of 'working towards', but interventions stop short of 'working at', so they can't regain their solid footing, feel shaky, incapable, unworthy, abandoned, and they react to it. In short, because of sets and because the system believes they are not worthy.

I know, you want to say it is because they are thick. No, they are not. I am talking about those with average ability and children with average ability should be, and are able to get good outcomes in other countries. In France children with average ability pass BAC, 90% in a school year, 80% in each year of birth.
Ability is distributed equally in all countries, Brits are not more stupid, so they too should be able to pass Bac with the correct organisation of education. You need to remove barriers for 90% of brits to pass the level of knowledge equivalent to Bac. I keep repeating this because it is really important to anshor the discussion to some factual reality, as opposed to opinion elevated to religeous dogma that 35% of population are too thick and anworthy. This dogma comes from 1870, it's time to forget it. If the French can design a system where 90% of school year can do enough maths to pass Bac, than Brits should be able too to learn those maths, and the system need to be made to move and fit around this goal.

Other countries qualifications and outcomes are scrutinised by experts under Bologna process and are recognised as equivalent in content and outcomes. Basically the Bac I am talking about is equivalent to A-level grade C. This means the 10%-tile Finns and French who pass those qualifications actually achieve an absolute level of knowledge equivalent to grade 4 here. Actually the French achieved 8 out of 20 to pass. They didn't pass because of lower norm reference, they don't have norm references, they actually answered questions 35% of Brits can't answer. I repeat that because it is an important anchor of reality. Average kids in all countries can achieve better. In this country they don't achieve not because they are stupid, but because the system is deliberately designed to abandon them. Yes, you need significant change of the system, but you need to teach them actually to solve those equations. It is a matter of how to organise tuition to improve the absolute standard attained.

It is most certainly not a matter of moving the norm reference to fit the same current low outcome. It is a matter to teach differently and better, to improve the outcome for at least 90% of population. I don't know why everybody pretend to not understand this. Totally invested in the sacred immobility of the system?

cakes you haven’t answered. Why do you think the lower sets go at a slower pace?

THe long and short of it is that schools are judged not only on the percentage of children that gain a pass or a good pass at GCSE but also on the level of progress made so it is in their best interest to get their pupils to achieve the highest grade possible.

They are not going to use sets if they don’t actually work.

You are contradicting yourself

You want 90% of students to get maths GCSE Grade 4 or above.

That is most easily achieved using the “watered down” foundation paper than it would be forcing children to sit through higher level content delivered at too fast a pace so they don’t grasp the basics & shattering their confidence in the process.

TeenTimesTwo
I agree.
A combination of changing assessment methods, reflecting on curriculum, different research into learning, more staff, smaller class sizes could all make a difference as you say, but not within the current set up.

I was more confused at being told by cakes that I needed to explain how to get 90% of students over a norm referenced threshold that's set at not 90% without doing any reframing or reworking.
Then when I point out that can't be done under the current set up, Cakes replies I should use some imagination, pragmatics and talk about redefining and recalibrating all parameters.

Madness.

cantkeepawayforever
I agree. It's hard work trying to repeatedly point out the same basic facts.

maisy cant

I think it isn't unreasonable to say there could be a way to get more students being able to do the topics that are currently labelled as GCSE 1-5.

More funding, more hours allocated to maths, a change in teaching style, more incentives for children etc could all make a difference.

It might even be that teaching mixed ability rather than in sets might improve it if teachers were trained in how to do the mixed ability, and also had smaller classes, and also had fewer classes.

What I don't think has been proved or even a convincing argument put up yet, is for the mixed ability for maths within the current English education system and funding.

Maisy,

I am just disbelieving that someone who has such a passionately-held view on such a niche subject is so incredibly uninformed about it, and so can't help hoping that at some point she / he will take some information on board.

grade 4 and above in Maths GCSE (I mean reaching the standard required, not diluting or reframing)

Cakes. There is no such thing as 'the absolute standard of Level 4 and above in maths GCSE', purely because of norm referencing. There is 'the mark required to get a 4 in that exam in that particular year taken by that particular cohort', but that does not represent either a particular body or a particular absolute standard - it represents a mark obtained by a certain percentage of the cohort taking that particular exam.

If we choose to set the 'absolute standard' at a level which 90% of current pupils can achieve, then I can absolutely guarantee that in a few years' time that will be 91%, 92%, 93% ... because teachers do strive to get better at getting their pupils through a particular qualification. Then there will be an argument about 'dumbing down', so the standard will be artificially raised again to create a new norm reference at 90%....

Obviously you need to scrap the norm reference, redefine and recalibrate all parameters. Like any parameter, it is a choice that can be chosen to vary or to be scraped all together. I thought you could take some degree of pragmatics, imagination
Hang on. You said there had to be
grade 4 and above in Maths GCSE (I mean reaching the standard required, not diluting or reframing)
But now you say we can scrap norm referencing, redefine and recalibrate?
So I when you say I need pragmatics and imagination, what you actually mean is 'work out what cake logic is being applied, then reply something saying cakes is right'.

cantkeepawayforever
I agree. But then again many of us have said this sort of thing.

I said 90% of students should reach the standard [of education] required [at Level 2 etc. in terms of content]

Obviously you need to scrap the norm reference, redefine and recalibrate all parameters

If the norm reference is scrapped, and replaced with one which 90% of students reach, then that can be done - given the political will - tomorrow. It does not require any changes to setting arrangements, and would mean that children would perform EXACTLY as they currently do but be awarded better grades...

You speak as if the current pass rates are a function of teaching and setting. They are not. They are a function of norm referencing. Changing norm referencing, alone, would create the 90% pass rate that you seek....

To avoid the widening disparities why not have a basic qualification that is pass/fail for basic numeracy (not norm based and can even be computer generated - so little chance of grade inflation)? Kids should take it when they are ready but it should be a pre-requisite to gcse. Also - why can’t people who struggle take the foundation paper first then go on to take the higher paper (after all kids have to be in training now until 18). Everyone would then be exposed to the same curriculum.

Alexander, you are pretending, right?

You just can't imagine anything changing. Everything is fixed and rigid. There are no moving parts possible, down to every tedious detail, you hold on tight to the whole and every part.

What about a different configuration, where DC actually learned the stuff, so they don't need the watered down foundation paper? Imagine it is possible to prepare a paper that everybody can sit and 90% can pass, because they actually can do it (they learned to the standard required I mean)?

I said 90% of students should reach the standard [of education] required [at Level 2 etc. in terms of content]

Obviously you need to scrap the norm reference, redefine and recalibrate all parameters. Like any parameter, it is a choice that can be chosen to vary or to be scraped all together. I thought you could take some degree of pragmatics, imagination. Just imagine that 90% of students actually cal solve quadratic equations... I don'tr know, like the Finns, the French....

Just cut the c£%^"p and give your coherent argument how you are going to make 90% of the cohort in UK to get grade 4 and above in Maths GCSE (I mean reaching the standard required, not diluting or reframing)
How can teachers ensure 90% of students hit a norm referenced standard defined by less than 90% achieving it?

Please tell me you aren't seriously suggesting that mixed ability teaching would enable 90% of pupils to reach a norm referenced outcome?

Oh dear what a woeful misunderstanding of what it’s like to sit a maths exam

Giving everyone the same curriculum would more than likely lead to less people passing, not more.

Why, cakes do you think that lower sets go at a slower pace?

The most able may be "on top" of any system cakes but what they on top of can vary.
They can be on top of the exact same standard. There is no need to dilute the curriculum. The whole idea is all but very few low ability students would go through the same curriculum and sit the same exams and more would pass it, but only the best few will get top marks.

My extremely limited experience, (dropped out of a Maths PGCE) is that children who can't read very well by lower juniors are handicapped. It's only anecdotal, but some children, if they had the questions explained verbally, had no problems, but deciphering the questions could put them off before they got to the maths bit.

What do others think?

At least I am happy to admit what experience I have / don't have. I don't feel the need to cover points that others have more detailed knowledge on than I have.

My DDs are not outliers, but they appear to need more repetition than the average. (The 20min-4hr was the range from fast to slow not average to slow).

Selective schools don't need to set in anywhere near the same way that a fully comp might need to for maths, selective schools are full of 'top set' kids anyway.

I can see the argument for mixed ability teaching in many subjects.
I can see the argument for not setting in primary.
I do not think you have in any way shown that mixed ability in maths at secondary is better. I have been more convinced by maths teachers views and my own experience.
If you were a maths teacher who had taught mixed ability at secondary and could explain how it would work in practice I would perhaps be more swayed by your assertions.

Anyway, I give up now.

I'm not going to spend more time discussing with someone who won't state their background on the topic. I have no idea whether you have any experience of schools apart from presumably having attended one once.

Enjoy bonfire night.

Of course selective schools are abandoning lower ability students. Jeez cakes you really are ridiculous.

Actually no, in the selective private school my son used to attend there were certain topics that only top set were taught. Up until the new 9-1 GCSe the other sets were all taught the same content but since the introduction of the new, harder exams they have the lowest set doing Foundation.

bangs head against cakes shaped brick wall

I'm desperate to engage but can't help feeling like a broken record. Cakes you clearly have NO idea what secondary schools are like and even less understanding of norm referencing.

20 mins vs 2-4 hours really isn't that unusual and would not be considered an outlier.

Selective schools I suppose take only highly able students and teach the full curriculum. In the grammar I know there were no sets until year 10, all sets had full curriculum and sat the higher paper. So that is not abandonment.

Teen,

Your last post is basically admission that you have no answer, no argument to put forward. You have nothing but labels and other peoples supposed titles to hide behind.
My argument is far from incoherent, this is why you call it names, have no answer and don't engage with it.

Your experience as you described it does no favours to the sets system, as I discussed up thread.
If your DC is so extreme that they require 4 or 2 hours for every 20 min that other children need, your DC is outside of the range of ability that can be educated without sets, in mixed cohort. An outlier cannot justify sets for everyone.
If your DC has average ability, than with the right provisions he would not require 2 hours for 20 min and should be able to do good GCSEs. In that case he should not sit in the bottom set. Your experience just doesn't add up, probably because your example of 2 hours is a construct for the sake of argument. The reality of your DC experience is more complex and nuanced. You advocate sets because this is what you know, what is available, or what you choose for your DC. It does not make it right for everyone.

I discussed the point about 35% early in the thread in page1 and 2. You did not engage with it.

Yes, norm reference is part of the problem and of course it needs to be looked at and revised as part of broader change. The basic fact is those 35% can't answer enough of exam questions. They don't score enough marks, because they were not educated to the required standard. Setting contributes to such low standards in the lower sets, poor outcomes, this is why it should be scrapped.

Have they been educated to the required standard, there would be huge pressure to adjust norm referencing, so that 90% would get grade 4 and above and not 65%. But first, those kids need to master the basic stuff for grade 4.

I say 90%, because just as an example, 90% of the French (and probably 98% of Finns) pass the equivalent of GCSEs, and Brits are not supposed to be less able... Do you follow?
You cannot explain these poor outcomes away with low ability because in other systems students with similar ability, from 10 to 35 percentile achieve better equivalent outcomes. So children with this range of ability are capable of better, it is the system that prevents them from achieving.

The point is only bottom 10% of population really have low ability.

Average ability starts at 25%tile, so 35 takeaway 25 = 10% of kids have average ability and don't get grade 4 and above. This is wrong.

Cakes - your points are interesting - i’m Just trying to clarify a few things. What do you think is the mechanism for lower sets making less progress:

1. innate ability of child
2. loss of confidence of child
3. low expectations of teacher for student
4. being in a class with more disruptive pupils.
5. low parental expectations
6. difficult home life
7. allocated less experienced teachers

Is just exposure to the full curriculum going to improve their attainment? Would you acknowledge that trigonometry should only be taught after basic arithmetic is mastered? Are you saying that everyone should do only basic arithmetic until 90% or 100% of the class can do it?

If you slow down the top, how do you propose the country increases the number of maths and physics graduates (already a shortage)? The jump from gcse maths to a level is already very large - some who attain a B would probably struggle - so less As would impact the number of people carrying on.