Maths setting advice

[YoungJoseph]

DD and her friend have been put in one of the lower abililty maths groups (3 of 4) at their new comprehensive. This has come to a surprise to us as they did well in their SATs-4a / 5-these weren't surprise scores, these were as expected over the time spent in primary.
I work in the school and I find these groups tend to have more challenging behaviour and lower expectations (which seem to lower as time goes on). Her group has also been given a NQT to teach them. Experienced teachers are teaching the top groups grrr
In my experience the groups aren't divided equally either, so the top sets will be rammed full whilst the lower sets have fewer children, so the opportunity to move groups is limited.
I am disappointed that her hard hasn't put her in 2/4.
It's not just her SATs result either, my knowledge of her and of the sets would have put her in the second from top group.
Clearly I have my view from working at the school which is one sided I suppose so any advice or experience is welcome.
DD isn't unhappy btw, I don't want to interfere and make the situation worse.

Good schools should review sets regularly. Ours are all reviewed at least every term and a major reshuffle is about to take place three weeks in to y7.

The targets should also be just as challenging regardless of the starting point.

Personally I would probably hold fire for now and see if work is at the right level. If it isn't then that should become obvious and there is a stronger case to be moved up.

Btw I don't think the behaviour is always better in tops sets. Dd is currently in top set maths where the general level is c6 or higher but some of the reported chat back to teachers is appalling. From over indulged mc brats.

I wouldn't assume top half on a 4a - 5 at year 6, DS got a 5 at the end if year 5. He is now struggling with the huge jump in work being set in year 6.

Yes, she's taken CATS and yes I know it could be a bright year. I never pushed her because it seemed that she was doing well in her maths and I thought she'd end up in the 2nd group. I've never compared her results with my friend's children either, so I took her result at face value.
If the groups are correct it means that more than half the children in her school have at least a level 5, ie well above the expected level. It's a comprehensive not a grammar.
This doesn't seem right especially with my experience of working in the school.

My son was in set 2 out of 4 and he got level 6 in year 7. In February he moved up to set 1. He told me there are children working at level 7a.he is a 7c.

Yes I know behaviour in top set can be bad as well.

I won't do anything but will have to keep a closer eye on her maths.

If you think she is in the wrong set then phone the school to ask how they decided the setting and if it's right, what she will need to do to move up. No point in simply sitting at home thinking the school has got it wrong.

An NQT being given a set 3 isn't a problem, NQTs are supposed to be given a range of abilities otherwise how are they supposed to become experienced teachers? NQTs have mentors and get observed and have support so don't assume that your DD is simply getting a raw deal while the top sets get the cream.

A 4a/5c in my comprehensive (in a town with two grammar schools, girls and boys) would be in the middle of ability for our maths sets. Our top sets are almost always full with level 6s and 5a's.

We also fill to capacity the top sets as those with a lower ability can get more teacher attention. Able students in a subject won't need as much help so one teacher to 30 is fine. With students who might need more help one to 20 works better. We review setting each term with tweaks done and then always have a major review at the end of each year.

Having an NQT should have no bearing on lessons as has been said lots of support so if issues do arise help will be sought. Also NQT's have more time to make lessons really engaging which older teachers with other responsibilities may not!

I also think having an NQT isn't an issue. DS3's ability with maths was always good but it came on leaps and bounds last year with an NQT.

Yes, all teachers have to start somewhere I know and it could be fine, I'm just sceptical.

I know they should get more support, not entirely sure they do though.

As you say you are also working in the school - I am not sure in what role but it is a careful line to walk.

In my NQT year I had an LSA who underminded me with her daughter every step of the way, her daughter was a pain in class, a year 10 girl and there were a group of them who tried every trick in the book to undermine me - if I issued a detention they went running to Mummy who went to the HoY who took them away. My HoD went balistic as he had seen the behaviour in action on observations.

It culminated in her requesting the head sack me with no basis whatsoever other than me not accepting poor behaviour from her daughter and addressing it.

She slagged me off behind my back, on facebook the lot, it was a GCSE class and I was told by her regularly I was letting her daughter down and she would fail - her daughter was not a natural mathematician but got 1 mark off an A on her first attempt at the exam, went on to get an A. Has also had the 'nerve' to come and ask me to help her daughter with some Stats work for her college course!

Maybe this makes me sensitive about people writing off NQT's but some of best teachers over the last few years have been in thier NQT year.

OK, the NQT issue aside.

What I cannot do is square this circle. My DD is not in one of the top sets. Yet a girl in top set year 9 asked me what 7 x 6 was. She wanted to use her calculator. In order for her to get to the answer we had to go through her 6 times table, one 6 is 6 etc. She wasn't a difficult girl, she seemed to genuinely struggle. This is why I am surprised my DD has been put where she has.

One lazy girl or a child does not know or can't remember a certain table is not representative of her mathematical level or the ability range of top set classes.

I teach RE but I would say 4a in year 6 is middle ability.

Possibly different intake so different levels will dictate being in a higher set.

Yr 9 might have a lower ability across the board - so has made it into a higher set.

Tables are not particularly well taught these days in some schools - I spend a lot of time across all sets top to bottom improving these skills - lots are taught to count up in 6's and when they can it is assumed they know the 6 times table - drives me mad!

If you honestly think the set is wrong - go and speak to the HoD about how they have been set, what you and your daughter can do to help her progress in the subject to move up a set, ask when sets are reviewed etc. Different schools use different methods so it is difficult for other teachers to say why this has happened.

Our current Yr 7 intake has 46% at level 5 at the end of KS2 - with two grammers in the same town plus 6 comprehensives to choose from. Primary's are pushing more and more students on to level 5's it is a noticeable trend.

Children move up and down sets all the time.

If your DD is as good as you say she is she will be moved up in no time at all.

One of my DS's friends was put in Set 2 in Yr 7, another in Set 3. By year 9 they were both in set 1. A third friend was put into set 3 and there he has stayed.

@Noodledoodledoo, the national percentages for maths levels this year:

L3: 10%
L4: 44%
L5: 33%
L6: 9%

This obviously doesn't change your point, but in recent years the L5 has stayed at roughly 35% and the L6 has been increasing.

My ds is in year 7, there are 2 set 1s evenly split. He has 30 in his set and he said at least half, probably more got level 6 in maths. I guess the other half are at least 5b or higher. It would not be good for your daughters confidence to be set too highly. My other ds went in at 5 a, didn't do 6 at primary but was 7b by the end of y7. The speed of teaching in his set means you really need to be excellent at maths to keep up, not just above average. In year 9 most of his set is level 8 and they have started the gcse syllabus.