7a maths

[Wobblypig]

My dn has been given a end of year maths target for yr 7 as 7a. We don't know what this means is terms of achievement or in terms of topic covered. Anyone know what would need to be mastered for this level? Is this a good level for 11 year old?

[noblegiraffe]

People seem to be of the opinion that rushing through the maths curriculum so that a high level 7 is achieved by '5%' of pupils in Y7 is a good thing. It's not, (except in exceptional cases) as it leads to a shallow, rushed understanding of the curriculum rather than solid foundations. There have been reports recommending against this and going for an enriched rather than accelerated curriculum instead, as it is causing problems further down the line.

[gazzalw]

Consolidation is probably the key word for maths learning then?

[seeker]

Gazzalw- it is one of my most useful skills. I honed it by reading Kenneth Clark's scribbles upside down- it was the only way of finding out what I was supposed to do next!

[JenaiMorris]

Haha!

Actually I did once have an idea about progress (not levels) when ds leapt by a gazillion* sublevels in Maths between Y5 "SATs" and the actual Y6 SATs, because I asked. I wanted to know if it was down to him having a developmental burst or down to teaching alone. The Y6 teacher said that it was just him and another (unnamed) pupil. I assume she was telling the truth rather than sparing the blushes of all the teachers that had gone before her

*I forget the exact number, but it was sufficient to say "bloody hell, ds - well done!". And no, he's not at L7 - that's his target for Y9.

Oh I did get a look at his friend's levels when his mother grabbed the sheet I'd been given at parents' evening from my hand to compare I am not competitive but this woman had got her son moved to another tutor group away from ds so he could be with friends who were "good academic influences". My ds's levels were quite significantly higher and she could barely conceal her outrage and bemusement I think back in primary, there was a small group who had been identified as the clever ones, and ds wasn't one. I can't help but think that it was the parents who'd identified the group rather than the children or the teachers, recalling convos where x's mother claimed "well of course x is EXCEPTIONAL at maths - he's too clever for this school....". Silly buggers.

[seeker]

That's another mumsnet education "given". That doing things sooner and faster is automatically " a good thing". I rant about this all the time in relation to reading. Just because a child can read at a particular level doesn't mean that a) they always should read books at that level or higher or b) that books at that level are necessarily the right books for the child concerned.

[JenaiMorris]

Sorry for the derailment

Oh and I'm not really boasting - all ds's levels are pretty average bar one or two. That's real average, not MN average. I am HUGELY proud though of the progress he made in Y6.

[seeker]

I don't think it's a derailment- it's a "moving on". Very different! Oh and my sooner faster post wasn't aimed at you, Jenai- just in case you thought it was. It was a cross post!

[JenaiMorris]

Oh I realised that seeker. Couldn't agree more re sooner faster.

I really don't want to devalue the OP's DN's achievement because clearly she's a bright girl because I don't think this is the case with her, but especially with maths "sooner, faster" can become little more than a party trick if children are coached and coached to reach certain levels.

[TheOriginalSteamingNit]

So this child reached year 7 never having been given a SATS target or grade before, is that right?

[JenaiMorris]

I think the OP just doesn't know her DN's Y6 SATs level, Nit. She says thinks she was entered for L6 papers though.

[NewFerry]

At DS school, where he got 6a at the end of Y8, I checked the actual GCSE scores for 2011, ie, his year. 50 from 150 pupils achieved A/A* in their maths GCSE.
This is a comp, and DS was in the top maths set throughout.

[gazzalw]

I am pretty sure that the results are not as they would have been when I was doing O Levels. There is absolutely no way 1/3 of a comprehensive school would get A grades...Even in grammar schools it would only be the top divisions who would get As and possible some in Division Two if they worked hard...

[NewFerry]

Luckily for our DC we are not in a grammar school area.
i think if you look at the results from current grammar schools, they would be looking at most pupils achieving A\A*, especially as so many mumsnetters are reporting that's its neither unusual, nor exceptional to, be level 7 at the end of year 7.
Says so on mumsnet so it must be true

[phlebas]

"So this child reached year 7 never having been given a SATS target or grade before?"

Not all children do SATS! My dd hasn't (she was home educated) & there are a couple more of her friends who haven't (one from a prep school that doesn't do them & one who moved from Russia).

"it's not, (except in exceptional cases) as it leads to a shallow, rushed understanding of the curriculum rather than solid foundations."

I completely agree there is an awful lot of stuff that I don't feel dd is solid on (she is not naturally gifted at maths) & she does lots of extra work at home.

I am new to this level stuff - I've only had a child in school for one term & have never paid any attention to it before - but am absolutely blown away by what a big deal it is. The first questions dd was asked by her classmates was what her primary school SAT levels where - whenever they have assessed work or tests they have to call out their levels to the teacher so they all know what everyone else is getting

[NewFerry]

Because I am very bored, I have tried to google what percentage of students achieved grade A in O level maths, back in the day.

This is the closest to my year i can find.
According to Hansard, back in 78/79, only 31% of students actually took the maths O level. 21% achieved a pass, ie A-C grade.
I assume that is 21% of the whoe cohort, rather than 21% of the 31%..
Link here
I am so heartened by that clever Mr Goves plans to take us back to this system

[gazzalw]

I wholeheartedly agree with what you've said Tiggytape....

I really do get the impression from DS that a lot of his classmates are still being tutored..... I am sure in a way it must irk the masters - what is their job if the parents seem to be saying that they don't trust the teachers to teach the DCs properly!

Yes, back in the day even at a grammar school where the really, really bright ones would have got 13 or 14 O levels, there was only the occasional pupil who managed all As - 6/7/8 As and a cluster of Bs was much more the norm...

And I agree about the fact that they seem to be tackling much more complex maths much earliers. DS has already done quite complex equations and we were saying that we didn't do those until Year 9. We didn't touch statistics of any kind until secondary school or percentages..

But I wonder whether they are actually any more mathematically intelligent than we were for the differences in methods? I still think our mental arithmetic is far better than our DCs' generations...

It all goes back to the fact that when we were taught slowly but surely but had mastered the basics before going on to more difficult concepts...

[gazzalw]

Newferry that seems about right. I went to a grammar school but failed my O Level (D) and DW got a C and she is actually quite good at maths - I think better than a C would suggest!

[JenaiMorris]

Based soley on personal experience, ds's mental aritmetic is far better than mine; certainly better than mine was at his age. I think teaching methods have improved hugely.

It wasn't until I started handling cash behind a bar that my mental arithmetic improved

[areyoubeingserved]

My maths is atrocious and DD well ahead of the game at 11 than I'll ever be. So IF she leaved primary having tipped that level 6 at maths, theoretically she's on target for an A in GCSE maths?? Gosh I find that a bit pressurising tbh, isn't it better to be a C and strive for an A? Or is that my not very logical way of thinking scratches head

I know they are doing Practice in school every so often on old papers. I thought children were meant to just walk in on the day and just 'have a go' as bit were.

[kitkatzebra]

Average at the end of year 7 is about a 4a/5c and each level (5c, 5b, 5a is one level then it is 6c, 6b, 6a etc...) should take roughly two academic years to get through. This means that your child's target is 3 levels/6 years worth above the national average! My daughter got a 6b which was very high and I haven't heard of someone getting a 7a in year 7 but well done to your child, they are doing extremely well

[MordionAgenos]

@gazzalw Im not sure what you mean by 'back in the day' but the maths they do for GCSE now is significantly more basic than what we did for O level in the early 80s.

[gazzalw]

Well I mean back in the late 70s....

I can believe that MordionAgenos, hence the much higher rates of As/A*s now.

However, I just looked online at DS's maths work for KS3 and on screen the way its worded sounds very high-falutin'

It obviously isn't on a par otherwise there wouldn't be such an issue about people going up to Uni these days to study maths without the prerequisite knowledge...(but I think it's the same in other subjects too...).

[seeker]

"It obviously isn't on a par otherwise there wouldn't be such an issue about people going up to Uni these days to study maths without the prerequisite knowledge...(but I think it's the same in other subjects too...)."

I'm going to disappear in a puff of logic now, but is it possible that the above is a function of more people going to university, rather than something wrong with the exams? I'm very old, and in my day I think 5% or so went to university. Presumably not every person going to university now needs top up lessons when they get there? Presumably the ones with the top GCSE grades don't? So is it just that GCSEs and university admissions reach further down the ability range now?

[MordionAgenos]

@seeker No, there is a specific problem with maths and there has been for some years. GCSE and A level maths aren't really fit for purpose any more, if their purpose is to prepare kids for maths degrees. If, however, their purpose is to give kids basic and then moderately advanced maths skills and not scare people off so that only a fewtake maths A level, then they are now doing a brilliant job (which wasn't happening before). But it's an issue for universities running maths literate degrees (maths, engineering, sometimes physics). It's not an insurmountable one though, so maybe on balance this is the best way to address the problem of getting kids to take maths exams. My point was, some posters were saying maths is harder now. And it's not.

It's a completely different story for other subjects though - some of them are so different from the old O level days as to make comparison very difficult, but certainly history and music are now much much more demanding courses and exams. English language is another one. Lit? Not so much (actually that seems to be almost identical although sadly no pride and prejudice any more). I'm certainly not one of those people who dismiss GCSEs out of hand as easier than in 'the old days' because they clearly really aren't. But maths is a special case (sadly).