Setting for Maths in Year 7

So basically you are a random off the internet with no specialist knowledge or relevant experience, and no coherent argument?

This x 2

Surgeons who fail all of the difficult patients and half of the mid-difficult patients and only do well for the easy patients would not be allowed to practice. Not on the difficult patients at least. That is the point really

Cakes I don't think you understand this either. I believe that many surgeons refuse to do the difficult (riskier) surgeries because by definition they are less likely to be successful/more likely to result in a patient's death. This will skew the surgeons results - a higher than average death rate would flag up the surgeon to the authorities. As a result patients with complicated cases struggle to find a surgeon to take on their care. (The law of unintended consequences). So a lot of surgeons probably ARE just doing well on the easy patients and avoiding the trickier ones, who could blame them? And I have no idea how this is relevant to setting for Maths at secondary school

I salute the patience shown by the rest of you, I'd have given up pages ago.

So basically you are a random off the internet with no specialist knowledge or relevant experience, and no coherent argument?

This

In fact cakes a lot of the time the more able aren't stretched as far as they can be. Plenty of good and outstanding schools have targets to improve the results of the more able.

The most able may be "on top" of any system cakes but what they on top of can vary. With no setting they may still be top of the class but their opportunity to be learn subjects in depth and at more advanced level will be compromised. Why you seem to think that either desirable or acceptible I really dont know but go ahead and bang your drum.

I have experience in teaching both setted and non-setted classes, as for much of my time in secondary I taught ICT/Computing as well as Maths, sometimes to the same kids in the same year group. I know the subjects are different but it gave me a number of useful insights.
In ICT groups were based on other GCSE choices. Typically, year on year, I would have a "good" ICT group and a "less good" group. The good group had more students studying triple sciences and MFL. The less good group had more students studying PE and Tech. Otherwise there was a lot of crossover. However the less good group had on average lower predicted grades and tended to have more youngsters with behavioural issues. I taught the good group by pitching lessons towards the top end of the ability range and having the more able take on more and more technically demanding modules. Less able students benefited from the high expectations, but took fewer modules, giving them more time to focus on improvement. The other group I taught by in effect setting within the group, so there was a small number of students who did the same as the more able in the other group - but on the whole I pitched lessons nearer to the middle of the ability range.

My results were consistently among the best in the school for exceeding targets. However I could not have taught Maths GCSE in the same way, even to the better group. My ICT students included, in both groups, students from every Maths set on that side of the school. Less able learners would have struggled.

Random, we deliberately put our strongest staff with bottom sets. They deserve the best deal and they get it.

Sets really don't limit average ability achievement. Otherwise pupils would all pass at college whereas this figure is a woeful 22%.

Sets do however enable pupils to be taught at a level appropriate for their ability. I repeat there is no point delivering a lesson on the sine rule to a student who cannot grasp calculating missing angles in a triangle.

Teachers work their arses off to enable students to achieve a grade 4. With norm referencing there will always be approx 35% who don't get the grade 4. That's how statistics work.

Cakes you clearly have no experience of teaching Maths in a secondary school, otherwise you would not be arguing your ridiculous point.

cakes

So basically you are a random off the internet with no specialist knowledge or relevant experience, and no coherent argument?

Versus Noble and Maisy both of whom are teachers who have shown time and time again are experienced teachers of many years standing, who have patiently explained why some of your arguments are completely unfounded?

And actually, I didn't fail to engage with the argument! Upthread I explained why your claims didn't chime with my own experience. Other more knowledgeable posters have found the holes in your argument. In particular, GCSE grades are set so that 35% don't pass. You could give every pupil 1-1 teaching from age 5, but under the current system, 35% would still not get GCSE level 4.

In my (selective) school we had sets for maths from y9. Top set had the number of seats in the biggest classroom in the school. Bottom set had 15 students - so much more teacher input per pupil.

Top set teaching was basically go through example on board once, have a go at exercise set, ask if problems. Very few problems that I remember. Most teaching was reminders to set out working properly and that 2 +2 did not equal 5 or 3 - i.e. check your work for arithmetical errors...

School had a good set of maths teachers, bottom sets were shared over the years as I would imagine a lot more planning was required to teach bottom set than top! Head of department probably taught more bottom sets.

How is that abandoning the bottom set?

Teen, qualifications, yours and mine, or whoever's have no relevance what's so ever.

You failed to engage completely with the central argument that sets limit the outcome for too many DC with average ability, regardless whether it is OK for your own children.

Namenic,
you are right that kids with SEN or low ability should also be taught well - probably in smaller groups with an experienced teacher - so they get more attention. I’m just not sure that not having sets is gonna be beneficial to them?

But that is a conflation that does not benefit either DC with SEN or those with low ability. Sets create most of their problems in first place. It could also be argued it is a form of discriminatory segregation. Segregation by sets slows down the progress at the bottom and in the middle, it does not accelerate it to the same pace as on the top by using alternative / additional teaching.

I will omit discussing advantages of sets at the top, because the most able will be on top in any system. There is no material disadvantage to them either way. There is no sign that in countries without sets able DC are dying of boredom. They are doing just fine.

First, SEN does not mean low ability. Some SEN involve learning disabilities but a lot of them, such as autism, dyslexia, can occur in DC of all, including very high ability. Those DC with SEN with average and high ability will require specific specialist intervention to meet their needs, not just generic more attention in a sink ‘low ability’ group. It would do nothing for the SEN and slow their progress and open up a gap. That would actually fail them and it does.

Sets do not means more attention and experienced teachers. Noble argued this emphatically. It follows from Noble’s and others’ argument about teacher training and resources that sets mean less attention and less experienced teachers. The physics of sets is that it avoids effort to accelerate progress by slowing down the whole set, each progressive set getting slower and slower. Sets do slow down the progress in the middle and at the bottom.

If sets were not slowing down the progress, children in lower sets would stay within the same progress threshold as top sets, i.e. would have good GCSEs and be able to access the higher paper, be it with lower result. The system is designed to have grade 4 after 12 years of school. The fact they can’t access the same curriculum and miss grade4 all together means their progress was slower than that for which the system is designed. They were pushed off the conveyor belt. That is not satisfactory.

Sets do mean diminished opportunity enforced by structural barriers in the organisation. Sets put a ceiling, slow down the rate of progress for middle and low attainers. An enforced segregation with diminished opportunity. It is an untransparent segregation that disproportionately disadvantages DC with average and low ability and those with SEN. Sets disadvantage those DC because they don’t have access to the same curriculum, the same expectations and same exam papers and for this reason are sealed out of good outcomes. Outcomes for DC in low sets in schools with average progress 8 are zero % GCSEs Eng lish and Maths at grade 4. Outcomes for DC in middle sets in schools with average progress 8 are also poor – about 50% get good GCSEs. So being in low streams means being structurally locked out of good GCSEs, which are the benchmark qualification expected after 12 years of school. This disadvantage is disproportionate, because unlike the difference between grade 9 and 7, the difference for those in lower sets is that due to curriculum and structural barriers they miss out completely on Level 2 qualifications at KS4 that are required for jobs, FE, HE. The law and financing provides for them to have Level 2 qualifications which they structurally miss, education does not work for them at all.

This is not satisfactory because this country believes in equal opportunity, while sets enforce ceilings to opportunities in an untransparent way. In the public discourse we agree that selection at the age of 11 is wrong, that children develop at different rate and should have the flexibility to flourish in their own time. Sets take away this flexibility in practice. Importantly, children who are ‘working towards’ in Primary school miss narrowly SATs and end up in bottom sets in secondary, where they are precluded from the higher paper curriculum and statistically are not likely to have GCSE at grade 4 (1 in 10). That means that at the age of 11 the chances of these children are sealed by segregated set curriculum, they are selected to fail, even though in public discourse we deny that there is selection at 11.

Children who are ‘working towards’ since Reception in Primary school are what I called ‘already in secondary modern’ in the old sense that they are unlikely to be exposed to the curriculum for good GCSEs due to structure of education. In my experience with my DD, intervention in infant school is provided to bring the child to ‘working towards’ level, and then withdrawn/limited due to resources, intervention stops short of ‘working at’. This is also the experience of many parents of children with SEN. ‘Working towards’ is used as justification to deny additional SEN resources and intervention, as evidence that the child is making sufficient progress. Yet, this rate of progress is on a pathway to miss GCSEs. ‘Working towards’ leads to failing SATs and the bottom set. Children are forced under a ceiling of failure. This means, due to such rationing of intervention, and organisation of sets, DC are locked out of equal opportunity for KS4 qualifications from junior school, for reason of their disability. This is not what is in law and portrayed in public discourse. Parents are unaware that their DC are stripped from equal opportunity.
They hope that assessments and EHCPs will sort things out and DC will have their chance, but that’s not the case due to barriers of sets. To catch up for times without provision, DS with SEN needs accelerated progress and flexibility to move between sets. Accelerated progress depends on provisions, which usually are provided for average progress. Accelerated progress is unlikely in schools with average or below average progress 8, flexibility between sets is all but impossible after year 8. So a child with serious SEN and good ability could in fact be locked into slow progress since reception.

cakes I asked upthread about your qualifications / experience, but I don't think you answered?

Are you a qualified teacher, if so what subject/level and how many years?
Or maybe a TA?
Or an academic?

Or a parent of a child you feel was failed by setting?

Or an interested bystander?

Or what?

Maisy,

It is the other way around, really.

Hiding behind nuanced minutia is incoherent. Denying facts is incoherent. Surgeons who fail all of the difficult patients and half of the mid-difficult patients and only do well for the easy patients would not be allowed to practice. Not on the difficult patients at least. That is the point really.

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)

Str1ngofhearts,
The article rehashes some stereotypes but does not fit with French statistics. They improved outcomes massively last few years: 90% pass the Brevet (GCSE); 90% pass the Bac each school year e.g. 2018. Yes, there is repeating of the year by about 10%, and taking this into account they calculated that “in a generation”, meaning by year of birth, 79% pass the Bac (page 222 of the pdf). That is a composite of 6 compulsory subjects at A level. Incidentally, the stark inequalities the French complain about are that 82% of children of the unemployed pass the Bac in a school year, vs 95% of children of teachers. With all its problems, this does much better for much more children.

A-level outcomes are something like 34% at grades C+

Comparing other countries is a pointless exercise as there are so many other variables.
Of course there are many variables and many variables need to be re-examined for a meaningful improvement in outcomes.
It makes perfect sense to clearly see the big picture that other systems without sets provide better outcomes for more pupils. This debate essentially is about what to do about the 35%. My point is, you cannot improve that without abolishing sets. As a first step, abolishing sets in Primary, and extending the KS4 for lower sets by a year or whatever to cover the full curriculum.

Maisy I agree regarding teaching to the top of a group and supporting the bottom. That's how I try and structure my lessons at secondary.

The outliers would become more extreme at secondary due to the increased number of students. Therefore setting helps to keep students in a non outlier environment which benefits them all. I currently have a Y7 group who were set on an average of their ks2 scores, I have students ranging from 84-116 maths score in the same room. I am not trained to teach this and the top end need more content, meanwhile the bottom end can't access how to draw a pie chart because they don't know how many degrees are in a circle. It's not fun for anyone.

Not a teacher, but I am really struggling to imagine how mixed ability teaching can possibly work in secondary school in the UK.

From my understanding, it is normal to stick kids on "ability tables" (hate that phrase) from early primary school age onwards, meaning their progress is going to start following different trajectories from early on and the differences are going to be massive by secondary age.

I live in a country where maths is taught "whole-class" throughout primary school, and educational processes such as more homework, more enforced practice, more workbooks at home and quite a lot of summer homework mean that the "spread" by secondary school age is a lot smaller than it will be in the UK. And even here, mixed-ability maths classes don't really work by junior high school level, not in the state system. Kids in state secondary schools here often end up sleeping through lessons and then doing their "real" maths in the evening at the tutoring schools.

Oblomov18
Honestly there's pros and cons. Without knowing your school context then it's difficult to say for sure. It will depend on your cohort. A class that is largely top of expected progress with lots of greater depth and a few working towards is probably going to be different than a class of 3 greater depth and the rest of the class expected or lower.
I find mixed works well (at least in my experience) when the cohort overall is quite able so working expected or higher.

On the whole (and maybe this is as someone who likes mixed & sets for different reasons), I find pitching a lesson high and offering additional support to half a dozen at the bottom is generally easier than pitching to the middle and then having to think of ways to stretch the top.
Mixed ability is harder if most of the class is bottom of expected or lower with a couple of outliers. It can be done but I think it's more difficult overall.

There is no doubt that the smug group, the invested proponents of the status quo, for whom the sets system works, all agree with each other. Sets wouldn’t exist if there wasn’t a smug consensus
There isn't a smug consensus. For maths the evidence suggests setting is the most effective way to teach on the whole.
For other subjects it is a bit more open ended as the nature of the subjects are quite different.
If there was a smug consensus then all schools would set across the board.But they don't.
Try to engage with the argument.
Thats quite patronising. You mean like I have all the way through by saying:

• sets are normally best for maths based on evidence
• schools group based on a number of factors
• there are a number of factors which influence student performance
• setting has pros and cons
• mixed has pros and cons
• going on with a million references to 35% and blaming staff when the grading system is norm referenced makes no sense
• when someone asks you for a way to make your solution work, saying "yeah well you are meant to be the experts. I bet you wouldn't ask a patient to tell a surgeon how to improve" is silly and illogical because a patient wouldn't try to claim nuanced understanding of medicine or lecture surgeons on the medical system.
• elements of the system need reform. There is no perfect system. It just doesn't mean mixed ability is the solution.
• implying parents only do educational activities with kids because of the existence of sets is not a logical claim
• denying there's any difference in ability beyond 2% at the top/bottom is not logical
• endlessly cherry picking elements of international systems which suit your view whilst ignoring any other variables isn't a coherent argument
• claiming people who don't agree with you are happy to fail children isn't a coherent argument
• claiming people who don't agree with you are anti change isn't a coherent argument

In other words, as I've said multiple times... The issue of groupings is more complex and nuanced than your opinion cakes.

MaisyPops, they used to go to a different teacher, in a different classroom for maths. So in effect there was a top, middle and bottom set, or 1,2,3, however you want to view it.

Now as a school, they stay with their teacher for maths and most other teaching other than science, music and pe.

I view it that the schools are focusing on their league tables, trying to bring the children with the lowest marks up. An of course I don't have a problem with that.
But I wonder if it's at the detriment to the bright children who won't be stretched as much.
Or is my concern invalid?

I'll probably never know.

Maisy, good to see that you are in your literary form. The only person expressing illogical colourful distortions and victimhood is you.
There is no doubt that the smug group, the invested proponents of the status quo, for whom the sets system works, all agree with each other. Sets wouldn’t exist if there wasn’t a smug consensus. Them disagreeing with me is obvious, but does not make setting right.

Try to engage with the argument.

(I work, btw, in a primary that was large enough to have sets, and has abandoned them .... with the result that results have hugely improved. What is most interesting is that high performers have continued to excel, while 'upper middle set' and 'upper lower set' pupils have done MUCH better than previously. Yes, as Noble said, this has involved 'working our arses off' BUT it has meant improvement in the experience and performance of pupils... You could argue that it is the hard work and total re-planning of the curriculum and resources that has resulted in the improvement - ie that amount of thought and hard work put into setted Maths would have had the same effect, but it is interesting and, actually, not what most of us predicted )

That shows to me that sets are detrimental, but do require training and re-planning of the curriculum.

Our experience - upper primary - has been that, while children with very acute SEN leading to being 4 or 5 years behind benefit from wholly separate teaching, those who might have been 'the top of the lowest set' [bearing in mind that in primary at least, numbers of formal sets taught in different rooms will be small so spread of ability in each very large] benefit from being in a mixed ability class. It has been the same for 'top of the middle set' vs 'bottom of the top set' - those groups have also done better in mixed ability teaching (the top of the middle set might previously not accessed quite the same advanced reasoning material as the top set, and being the bottom of the top set proved detrimental to the self esteem and maths learning of some very able pupils), and in our case, without detriment to the highest ability though we do have to plan very meticulously.

Cakes - you are right that kids with SEN or low ability should also be taught well - probably in smaller groups with an experienced teacher - so they get more attention. I’m just not sure that not having sets is gonna be beneficial to them?

Oblomov18
Are they set as in different classes or set as in there's different levels of work on different tables?
If you think your child isn't progressing thrn it always worth a polite chat with the teacher about that.
If it's just a difference of opinion then I'd let them get on with it as there is no single grouping and seating solution that will work perfectly for every child.

Thank God DD has done all the hard work of getting into her school. No setting now... as they are all precocious know it all's. (She used to get terribly stressed about flunking an assessment and ending up in ...heaven forbid...the second set at primary)