School used to set for maths ... no longer does

[redskybynight]

Just looking for some reassurance really! DD's school always used to set for maths. With 120 children in a year group and 5 maths sets, there was a considerable ability difference between the top and bottom sets.

This year they have decided not to set and all children will all be taught in their classes, so mixed ability.

Please can someone reassure me how this will work? Under the previous system the children were taught completely different work. I am struggling to understand how the teacher can successfully manage the whole ability range without splitting herself in about 6! DD is Year 4 if it makes a difference ...

redsky:

It's really difficult not knowing your school or how they might handle this to suggest.

DD2 started at a new school last year which has two sets (upper/ average ability) for the 90 pupils in the year group. All of the children in each set do the same work but it is handled by having an activity they think everybody should be able to do, an activity that is a bit tricky and an activity that 'will melt your brain'. All the children are invited to do whatever activity they desire - so there's no preconceptions that if you don't know all your times tables you won't get fractions or perimeters.

The children are also continuously asked to show green/ yellow/ red cards after explanation bits (green - I get it & you can go on, yellow - not so sure, could we pause a bit and review this, red - stop, I don't understand this at all).

DD2 says that there are a few bright sparks who've whizzed through the work to help those who are struggling by explaining how they do it their way - and sometimes that really helps out. I also know that where they have children who are streets ahead, they arrange for them to go to the maths sessions for the next year up (obviously that can't be arranged in Y6 - but I think they get them to do more independent work on My Maths or similar).

My advice is to ask the teacher(s) to explain a bit more about this new system (which hopefully will reassure you) when you next get a chance - perhaps autumn parent/ teacher meetings if you have them.

I'd monitor what your DD is doing - so does she say work is too easy/ boring in school, does she say there is a lot of disruption, does she say that she's given extra work to do (extension tasks). What is the homework like - does it seem challenging or is it done in 5 minutes.

A good reality check for what a Y4 pupil should be covering is: www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/335158/PRIMARY_national_curriculum_-_Mathematics_220714.pdf - Y4 programme of study starts on p24 - and itemizes in detail what should be covered (and presumably mastered) by the end of Y4.

In the meantime if you haven't discovered it - Woodland Junior school Maths zone is fantastic and has all sorts of links to great games to practice maths skills: resources.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/maths/

HTH

DD2 is at a single form entry school, so obviously they can't 'set' and the teacher has to teach the whole class with a wide range of ability, both for maths and for English.

They are moved onto different ability tables though, and given different questions. So for example if doing multiplying, the top table might be multiplying 3 digit decimal numbers using long multiplication, the lowest table might still be using number-lines, grid method to do 2digit x 1 digit sums.

I struggle with the idea of different sets being taught 'completely different work'. I would have thought it should be the same topics but more in depth / harder questions. (This is how DD1's secondary does it. Otherwise how can anyone ever move up sets?)

The majority of primary schools are far to small to have ablity sets for anything. Your child will be fine. Primary school teachers are trained to differentiate.

I am happy to wait to see how it pans out, but just interested in others' experiences. PSBD's description of how her school does it is similar to the way the DC's school teaches English, so I guess they will extend this to maths.

I accept the idea that the children can do versions of the same "topic" but if your higher ability children are multiplying decimals whereas your lower ability children are multiplying single digit numbers actually you do need to teach different methods - or variations of the same method anyway. I just can't imagine how this can be done by whole class teaching - wouldn't you have to teach each bit individually?

I know that most schools only have the form to "set across" but I do totally get where the Op is coming from. Mine are at a junior with slightly more numbers per year and are set for maths across the year. Plus in the set they are diffentiated into 3 groups to do different work (and occasionally more). So there are effectively 15 groups of maths of which each teacher is dealing with 3.

To go to non-set, on average there will be in a class of 30, 2 people on each level (if 15 groups), and one teacher is then dealing with 15 different levels to be equivalent.

What I have noticed: it isn't just about doing "harder sums" but also that the top groups tend to whizz through topics much quicker. The top set could complete a topic on fractions including adding/subtracting in a week, whereas the 3rd (out of 5) set was just starting equaivalent fractions after a fortnight.

I have two minds about it. I went to a 1 form entry primary. I don't think we diffentiated in maths at all from what I remember. I went to Oxford and read maths. So I don't think the maths at primary made any difference to me.
However I do remember spending very little time on maths, I could often whizz through the work that was meant to take an hour in 5 minutes, and move onto something different. One year I spent an awful lot of maths time reading. And actually, it was only at secondary, when they setted, that I found that I enjoyed maths and a challenging piece of maths was what I really enjoyed doing.
Some children will not come out of the "maths is boring" and never work at it and some children will always work hard enough to be keeping out of trouble of whichever class group she's in. So she would work less hard in her class, because she could keep out of the bottom group easily.

I used to teach at a school which had 3 classes per year group. We set for maths. Then we tried NOT setting for maths. The standards in maths went up.

What you have to remember with the '5 sets and 3 levels in each set therefore 15 different levels' scenario is that there is a heck of a lot of overlap. you will find that the lower end of the top set could comfortably work with the middle of the second set and the top of the third set.

The benefit of keeping them in their own class for maths is that the teacher knows the children very well - and can also pick up on things in the afternoon if needs be. It's not just confined to maths lesson times.

I'm curious about this - our local school has parallel mixed age classes and has just decided to drop setting, so all maths will be taught in mixed ability groups of 2 year groups. I'm not sure it will be good for our DD.

DD's school is tiny with only 3 classes and 70-ish children in the entire school; thus there are 2 or 3 year groups per class and certainly no sets for literacy/numeracy. Children are split into ability groups for literacy and numeracy; however, the groups are fluid. Therefore 'Johnny' might be in one group when the teacher is covering time or measure, but another group when covering numeracy.

I have no issue with this, and I am confident that the teacher differentiates class work appropriately.

Bunny - that sounds great, but much more achievable with 23 in a class than 30.

Ds was at a tiny school with three year groups in the oldest class, so obviously no setting for any subject, just good solid teaching using differentiation and an admittedly excellent ft TA.

They consistently achieve 80% level 5 + in ks2 SATs so I don't think it does those kids any harm not being set.

Bunny - that sounds great, but much more achievable with 23 in a class than 30.

Pico - one of the classes has 30 children (Yr 4, 5 and 6) and still manages to achieve this.

HmmAnOxfordComma - it sounds like your DS's school is rather like my DD's school, and with similar KS2 results too.

My children's school used to set, and like yours, it has 120 children in each year. They now seem to change policy on the setting issue every year - one year, for example, they had a top set and three mixed ability sets. Then they returned to four sets - followed a few weeks later to the children being taught in their normal class. This year, Year 6 is being set (just in time for the SATs - purely coincidentally, of course).

It's probably worth remembering that if your child's school had only one class per year it would effectively operate in the same way as if your child is taught in their normal class. And it should be perfectly possible to differentiate within the classroom.

In my experience the worst aspect of setting was the parental attitudes towards it. An enormous number of parents took far too much interest in the sets that other peoples children were in. At least you'll be spared the casual question - "So who does X have for maths?"

If 80% are getting Level5 in KS2 SATS that doesn't sound like a very mixed ability range?

Well they are. Average ability on entry, quitr a lot of SEN (small schools always attract more as they have reputation for being more caring - warranted or not), slightly above average ks1 results, very above average by ks2. Just excellent teaching and high behavioural expectations.

One child came from another school end ks1 with level 1 across the board. Finished ks2 5a across the board.

2 schools local to me, both have intakes large eniough to allow setting if wished (so >1 class per year group)

1 sets for Maths.

1 doesn't.

The first one has a better intake. the second does MUCH better in Maths (80% or so L5, 20% level 6). Their English results - neither sets for english - are very comparable, so it does look as if the lack of setting actually improves results at the higher ene of the ablity range. I agree this can be counterintuitive, it was something that I was nervous of as a parent of 2 very mathematically able children.

I have also taught in sets and non-sets. Non-sets are harder work - the range of abilities within the class means that one's differentiation has to be really good. It is easy to be 'lazier' when teaching sets - 'oh, they're closer to the same ablity, I won't bother planning 3-5 ddifferent levels of activity to meet different needs' - and I know that i teach 'closer to the top of my game' on a day to day basis in non-sets. Whether my family appreciate the extra couple of hours of planning time each Sunday is moot!

But if 80% finish Y6 on Level 5 and your cohort is only 20-30 children anyway, that's likely to mean that the majority of children are at a similar level for a lot of the time - so they may have started at different places but sounds like they end up in a common place pretty quickly?

The DC's school gets about third Level 5/6, a third Level 4 and a third Level 3 or below. And that's making above average progress from starting points (measured at start of KS2 as this is a junior school). So the whole ability range is genuinely represented. It also has a high proportion of children with SEN, which in a bigger school translates to a lot of children. I don't believe this compares to a much smaller cohort with (by the sounds of it) a much more limited ability range. Thanks to others for their observations though, they have been very interesting and as I said upthread I will just have to wait

But remember years 4,5 and 6 are all together in the same class in this school, so across one class, for one teacher, that must compare to the ability spread at your dc's pure yr 6 or yr 4 or whatever class. I mean level 3 to touching level 6 in the same class.

Anyway, whatever, I am a firm believer in setting by ability in secondary. At primary, with excellent teaching which means excellent differentiation, it never worried me so much.

And I guess what I was also saying is a huge, huge number of children (possibly the majority?) are taught in schools of single cohort year groups at primary where setting across year groups isn't an option anyway.