Conversations with the head re: maths setting, is this ok?

[Cortina]

Our primary set for maths from Y3, we have a big intake/primary with several parallel classes.

This is ok to my mind as long as the sets are fluid and flexible. As some may know I have some strong feelings around 'ability'!

Head has an open door policy and is very friendly. We were talking about setting and he said to be honest children don't tend to move after they've been set, it is just to difficult to keep moving everyone around. Of course, if a child is showing exceptional promise etc and working way beyond where they've been placed they'd be moved.

Makes me think about how rare it is that a 'bright' child is re-categorised after a run of poor results (other reasons are found, falling in with a bad crowd etc) compared to the other way around.

Also think about the dreadful teachers that they gave the bottom maths sets in my day..but it's not like that now? She says, brightly .

Would this bother you?

Yes, that makes sense Pixie, thank you. You have to trust that all will be well.

If the top set have covered say topics 1-10, and the next set only 1-8, then it would be very hard for them to move a child up, as they'd have to "catch up" with the other topics. Moving them down would be simpler, though then they'd be covering the same topics again, which is a bit of a waste of time too, unless they were really struggling.

I guess in your shoes, I would try to watch carefully for the first month or so, to see if I was happy my DC was in the right set, and make sure to discuss a change asap if you have doubts.

But tbh with maths I think those who seem to be grasping it quickly in Y2 will continue to do so for the next few years at least, and the same for those who need to go slower.

Thanks, we had a few dramas last year with rigid setting shall we say, so I am a little sensitive now. That does make sense though.

DS is seen as a child that should 'always' be at the top end of a lower achieving group. Most of what I read suggests children are brought on if they are with children who are performing 'better' than them. Guess it all depends on the child but last year this felt like a cop out and an excuse frankly. We did get things sorted in the end.

The head said it is better generally to be at the top end of a lower achieving group in passing too. Hmm. I can see the logic but don't think this should blindly and permanently always be the case. DS seems to rise to the average of whichever group he is in over time, outside of school too etc.

I think the fact that the child might need to catch up to get into the top set means there is something wrong with the setting system. Not that I know what the answer is, you understand! But it really cannot be right that a child at the top of a set below should not be stretched further but has to be limited by the working of the rest of the group.

I'm a bit shocked at setting in Year 3 - that is way too young to label a child and assume that no child will move unless they make a huge improvement.

What about the kids who are borderline between the groups...how much will this system affect them. The kids at the top of the middle group and bottom of the top are effectively at the same level - how as the school seen the effect of setting on how these kids perform, when compared again in Year 6. Does the school track this?

My child was put in the bottom set for Maths in Year Two. I felt it was wrong but was assured it was "fluid". I know my child and know that he raises his ability to those around him, also that while at the start of Year Two he was slow in instant recall of arithmetic facts his maths understanding was actually very sound.

Using Mathletics, Bond books, etc, we tutored at home to ensure he wasn't missing any topics - they covered a lot, lot more in the higher two sets.

I happened to be helping in his maths class toward the end of Year Two he was still in the bottom set and being used as a teacher.

He was OK with it all, to be honest, as he actually really likes the teacher role.

Now, in Year Three, they have done away with setting. Within his class he is on the top table for Maths.

I do wonder what would have happened if we hadn't taken the decision to "plug the gaps" as it were at home.

My experience (as parent-helper in Y3 maths) was that the whole class (whole range of ability) covered the same topic, but the top sets did it in a more challenging way: they got more problems to do in the same amount of time, they got the problems in more stages, etc. The bottom set did the same topic but in the most simplified way. Also, the children were assessed at start of each half term to see if they should move tables (DC have been moved on occasion).

Obv. it could be done very differently in other schools.

In our school in Y1 the top groups had covered far more than the rest of the class by the end of the year. I found out what DS had missed and covered the rest myself in the summer holidays.

What was frustrating was that he was intellectually capable of understanding and working through the same spelling words and topics that he'd missed etc. It felt like a seemingly arbitrary decision had been made relatively early on about who to 'express stream'.

Yes, I agree it is a problem with the school - namely that the sets were too rigid and that what they covered wasn't equivalent.

I just thought it was worth noting as something to watch out for.

Similar happened in English to be honest.

I think in some ways my son presents as knowing less than he does. He internalises a lot of his learning until he is 100% confident of getting things right.

Yes, probably true Pixie.

It is a hard line to tread as a parent sometimes. I always want to support the school.

I do wonder if I should have had more of a conversation about his maths set. All I said to the teacher was "Oh, OK, how fluid is that?" at the start of the school year - nothing else throughout.

He did go down a group in spelling in Year Two and I was thrilled - definitely the right decision. Again I wondered if I should have given more feedback initially that he was finding the spelling words hard to revise for.

I don't actually personally care where in the ladder he is as long as he being pushed at the right level - enough to engage, not so much as to lead him to give up.

I do struggle with how much to say to the teacher without getting over-involved in their classroom and decisions, on the other hand I sometimes wonder if my children could do with me saying more.

I can see what you mean, Pixie.

I am also sensitive to setting as for some reason in Secondary school aged about 13 I was put in the bottom english set. English was my best subject and I was devastated back then that no one believed in me or had any conviction I had the ability to do well. I was put in the bottom set despite getting the top essay mark in my year.

I was good, very good as it turned out and in every test I beat every child even in the top set. We took the same mock exam papers. No one moved me and I had a great teacher.

I won the english prize eventually. We formed one set for A'level. Must have been the only pupil who had been in a bottom group for O'level to do so. Problem was I had no confidence and didn't believe I should do an S'level or apply to a 'good' Uni. I couldn't be any good or they would have believed early on you see.

I think that by year 3 there can be quite a gap between abilities and I am glad that my DCs school has ability sets for maths and english. I have been told that once the sets are established it is quite difficult to move between the sets because the top set is pulling away from the middle and the middle from the bottom set. This is fine if your child is in the top set but can see problems especially if they are in the middle set. I think children do have good and bad periods of work however generally I would hope a school can see which children are top set material overall and those that maybe need more time to learn concepts etc. To answer the OP, if my child was borderline between middle and top set then yes I would be bothered.

Mine have both moved up during their primary school years and not experienced any problems, so presumably they have either covered enough or been given the help to catch up with anything they needed.

My younger DD was moved up yesterday - she is in Yr3 but was doing maths in a second set which was mixed Yr 3/4. Oddly enough I felt she wasn't too confident in some of the topics so was happy with that - I even wrote a note to her teacher at the bottom of her homework (they have a parent evaluation box on each task) to say that I thought her confidence might need a boost and could they please keep an eye. Now she's in the top set, having been moved up with 4 of her Yr 3 peers and she's come home with a stack of harder work but enough confidence to sink a battleship - clearly I have been missing a trick, I thought easier work would be better for her but was wrong. Thank goodness for teachers.

I think setting - as long as it's fluid and allows for the fact that young children can develop in leaps - is a really good idea and gives children the support they need to make the most of themselves. When I started school (in the Netherlands) I was at a school that didn't set and where the teachers refused to believe that I could read, write and do sums on entry, so I developed school refusal. One Ed Psych later I was moved to a Montessori school and never looked back.

Setting needs to be fluid, imo.

DC's school streams for maths from Y2, and DD1's been moved around a lot; she tends to plateau for quite a long time, then makes big leaps. She goes between middle and top streams; is currently in 2nd out of 4. her school do a test at the end of every half term, and move children around after that. because its so fluid, it stops people panicking I think.