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?

[BooksandaCuppa]

And I would add languages to that special group. There is absolutely no way that gcse languages are as rigorous as the 90s equivalent or presumably o levels - and just like in maths this has a knock on effect on the standard of the a level.

Eng lit, I agree, is probably about the same level (at a level) - possibly the students go into more detail on theoretical approaches to texts, but, at the same time, they also seem to be much more 'taught to the marking criteria' so I don't imagine they turn up at university any more prepared and possibly less.

[seeker]

That's interesting. I was basing my thoughts on the sad fact that, although I got a 1 in O level maths in the Dark Ages (1-9 in those days!) I can't do much of ds's year 7 homework!

Certainly in the subjects I actually know something about the GCSEs seem pretty rigorous, if a little formulaic- but I remember being taught how to write an O-level passing essay, so I don't think that's changed either.

[MordionAgenos]

@seeker I'm younger than you but I think we were taught to write good essays, rather than O level passing essays. And it's the same today. (Although not always - I've done university and professional qualification teaching and examining and the number of people who can't write is astounding). I don't think there is anything wrong with teaching kids how to express themselves clearly on paper - it's one of the more useful skills they should be learning at school.

On the maths, the balance of the syllabus has shifted towards the easier topics and away from the ones demanding more 'higher skills', and important chunks that were in the O level syllabus have been moved to the A level syllabus. Too few people had a proper maths qualification back in the day. It may be that the changes that have been made are actually the best solution to the problem. But it is inaccurate to say maths is harder now.

[seeker]

Absolutely not. But I do think there is a difference between a good essay for different purposes, if you see what I mean. I remember being taught specific techniques for getting everything necessary into an essay in a specific time, for example, which was s different sort of essay than a homework think piece. Dd is doing the same with her A level Philosophy- exam essays and "proper" essays are different techniques.

[MordionAgenos]

Of course. And any decent teaching on effective writing will stress that you tailor what you write and how you write it to the circumstances of the assignment. That's not, in any way, teaching to the test. It's a vitally important life skill. Perhaps not for everyone - but for many people.

[noblegiraffe]

Maths A-level was deliberately made easier in order to increase the numbers of people taking it, as we need a mathematically literate population; content was moved to Further Maths. But universities haven't caught up and added Further Maths to their entry requirements for maths courses, instead they moan about maths A-level not being good enough to the Daily Mail. It's not supposed to be.

[MordionAgenos]

In my day (80s) you couldn't do a maths degree anywhere decent without further maths (or what we used to call double maths - one A level of pure, one of applied - not every board had the mixed exams with normal and further) Is it really the case that for a period between say 1990 and -what, 5 years ago?- they relaxed their entrance requirements to merely A level? I find that difficult to believe at it doesn't chime with what I know (but I don't know about every single university).

[noblegiraffe]

If you have a look at current maths degree entry requirements at Russell Group Universities, very very few require Further Maths. When I applied in 1996, most only said it would be beneficial.

I wouldn't have thought that many universities could require further maths, historically, due to so few schools offering it. That situation is improving, but it would improve more quickly if universities said it was needed.

[webwiz]

There are definitely lots of universities that don't require further maths A level for maths courses and then spend part of the first term racing through the content. The more prestigious/competitive courses however you want to describe them will only take someone without further maths in exceptional circumstances and they use the STEP exams as "proof" of mathematical ability.

DH has a maths degree and DD2 is in her second year of one, and she seems to be studying the same content that he did but the difference is she had a very difficult first year and he had an easy one.

[MordionAgenos]

When I was applying in the 80s, Cambridge, Warwick, Imperial, UCL required it. Or, alternatively, pure maths A level and Applied maths A level. Brunel didn't. I know Southampton and Durham required it also, although I didn't apply there. Oxford required it too.

[MordionAgenos]

@webwiz exactly. My maths prof BiL tells me that it's perfectly possible to be absolutely fine (and degrees haven't been diluted) so long as there is some remedial catch up stuff tacked on to the beginning and then the kids work full out in the first year. He reckons that the difference is purely in amount covered, rather than in testing mathematical ability - he says that A level maths and further maths, at the very top end, are still good indicators of who 'gets' maths, but that they just haven't covered quite as much of the foothills as we did back in the day. There are - according to him - more problems for B grade type A level maths students who go on to do maths literate degrees.

[ibizagirl]

Dd told me at the time that there were other children apart from her that got a level 7 in maths in year 7 and this was their first assessment. Could have been 7A or could have been 7B or 7C. I think it was dd and another girl and three boys. And this is at a state school (high school turned academy) and my dd is on free meals coming from a single parent family on a council estate.

[EvilTwins]

basildonbond - thanks for the somewhat cutting remark. [bhmm] At the school I teach in, targets are linked to what we call "baseline data", which is the level a child achieved at the end of Yr 6. What is the point of Yr 6 levels if the secondary school is going to ignore them? Why bother testing a child in Yr 6 if, in Yr 7, the secondary school does their own tests? A child at my school is expected to make 2 sub-levels of progress per academic year. Therefore, a child whose Yr 7 target is 7a would have a baseline level of 7c, and their end of KS3 target would have to be a 9c.

[lljkk]

At our primary we are this year entering about 20% of the intake for the L6 paper.

I love statements like that. So very MN.
DC school is ordinary. So ordinary that only 2-6% of pupils will be entered for L6. 20% is NOT ordinary.

[seeker]

Eviltwins- sorry to hijack, but what data do you use to set targets? I am trying to find out from my ds's school but I'm not having much luck- and his are very odd!

[EvilTwins]

We use FFT and work backwards, then triangulate it with the info from primary school. All KS4 targets are FFT, but we've started doing KS3 targets using that data this year.

[noblegiraffe]

Don't you have computer generated FFT targets for KS3 as well as KS4? We get sent ours.

However, for target setting we have a look at our baseline data and work out realistic targets for each student. Assuming 2 sub level's progress each year for every student will give targets which are too easy for top set kids and sometimes too challenging for the the bottom sets. So we look at where they started rather than where they are predicted to be in KS4 for our targets.

[IShallWearMidnight]

webwiz - hijacking, sorry - how has DD2 found year 2? DD1 reckons it's been a lot harder, but compounded by rubbish tutors for some subjects. Exams were very stressful this time round .

[Clary]

Seeker: "7a is good for the end of year 9. It would be exceptional in any but a mumnsnetter's child for the end of year 7".

LOL

And yes, don't worry, the target is not intended as something for parent/aunt and child to achieve independent of school - as MI suggested, the major input will be from teachers.

I too would be surprised if it were a target for end of year 7. What level is she working at now?

Grr at posters saying ooh yes, level 7 is not unheard of for yr 7, my child/my friend's child/all the kids in our top set have it!!! It is really a very high target. The yr 7 top set at my children's comprehensive in a relatively leafy high-achieving area are working (according to DD) at about 5a-6b so I don't see how any of them could be expected to achieve 7a by the end of the year.

well, there are 200+ in the year and by the sound of it none of them will get a 7a at the end of it, so yes, I woudl say it was exceptional!

[gelo]

Mordion universities stopped requiring further maths as it was seen as disadvantaging potential mathematicians from the many, many schools that didn't offer it and was part of widening access. Now, more schools are offering it again and thanks to the further maths network children can access the course (at least to AS) even if their school doesn't offer it. So the requirements are swinging back the other way at the top universities and though even oxbridge and the like don't make it an absolute requirement, nearly everyone who gets a place has done it (you need a very good excuse if you apply without it as to why not) and summer catch up worksheets are issued to those who haven't.

[EvilTwins]

noble - Not sure what we used to do - the working backwards from FFT is new this year. It's caused a few issues with Yr 9s, who have suddenly found their end of year target has moved upwards... I have a lot of 8a targets in my year 9 classes now.

[JustinMumsnot]

I find it interesting that all I have done on here is state what my experience of my DCs' schools (which believe me are utterly bog standard state schools serving far from middle class catchment areas) and I have been patronised, 'grred' at, disbelieved and mocked by a number of posters. Why? Are we only allowed to share our experiences now if they are approved by certain posters. Mine might not be exactly the same as other peoples, it doesn't make them any less valid. And this easy slur of 'only on MN' is complete bollocks frankly. MN is a pretty wide cross section of society and if there is a 'typical mumsnetter' I don't even know what that is. It's not me anyway. It smacks of inverted snobbery and it's not nice.

[muppet1969]

Well, I taught a year 6 class last year in a three form entry state primary school and 25% got level 6 maths - 22 children. When i tested them on a KS3 level 5-7 paper in March before the sats 7 of them achieved a level 7, with 2 of those getting a 7a IN YEAR 6! One of those went on to get full marks on the level 6 paper. Of the 22 who passed 10 got 40+ on the level 6 paper. So yes, it is perfectly possible to do. If children are mathematically able and are taught the work they will be able to achieve those levels. What's more, I teacher assessed 5 of them at level 7c at the end of the year because that's where they were consistently working at, based on the published NC APP level descriptors. And, I happen to know that several of them have been accelerated at the local state secondary school so they will take gcse 2 years early. And its in London. A state comp.

[lljkk]

I humbly submit that a disproportionate number of MNers send their kids to high achieving schools.

BBC says that about 10% of eligible pupils (who does that preclude in the cohort)? sat L6 tests in 2012. 20% is unusually high.

2002 report said that only 10% of those who sat L6 actually got L6, so that's 1% achievement, perhaps, about what I would expect.

[wildirishrose]

Children attaining level 7 in year 7 are not exceptional they've just been taught more of the curriculum.