Setting for Maths in Year 7

[lucyanntrevelyan]

Can anyone tell me if their DC school does not set for any subjects even Maths at Year 7 ? This is a change the school have made for this year which I have just discovered at Open Morning. (Previous DC at school have all been set for Maths from this point in Year 7 and for other subjects in Year 9) I am not clear if there will be setting at all for the current cohort. My DC is very able at Maths and my research has suggested that not setting for Maths is a disadvantage for higher ability children. The Maths department told me 'research suggests mixed ability is better' but didn't give me any indication which research? Can anyone /teachers enlighten me with what research this was so I can be better informed and reassured this is the best thing for my child.

It’s not better for your high ability child and if it has been dumped on teachers without training in how to effectively teach mixed ability, it’s not going to be great for the teachers either.

This is not going to benefit your child. If teachers have to basically teach it without training it’s not going to work either. It’s worth bringing it up with the school.

I believe maths is one of the few subjects where setting is largely accepted to be beneficial across the board (but I'm open to be corrected).

Mixed works well in other subjects with a skilled teacher. I've never heard it be good for maths.

Having taught year 7 maths in the past (not my specialty subject) I can absolutely guarantee that this will not be at all advantageous to a higher ability yr7

My DS school sets for Maths in Year 8. He seemed to spend Year 7 going over what he had already done and has only really just learned anything new in Year 8.

He is very bright at Maths though. He was bored last year and enjoying it more now he is in top set and being stretched.

I'd be fuming. It's not better in maths and actually, arguably, isn't any good in English either.

So nobody thinks it's a good idea? Where is the research the school are quoting? Is it just that it is good for the lower ability DC?
Realistically they are not going to change this just because I question it are they, so is there any point? What would you say in approaching them?
Thanks for all the replies.

If you want to know the reason that the school may be blundering into mixed ability teaching, it’s probably because the Education Endowment Foundation Teacher Toolkit says that the evidence is negative for setting based on the studies that they’ve reviewed: educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/evidence-summaries/teaching-learning-toolkit/setting-or-streaming/ This toolkit is supposed to be a handy look-up table for evidence for headteachers.

However, there is plenty of suspicion that they’ve botched their analysis: teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/2018/03/03/why-is-the-eef-getting-it-so-wrong-about-ability-grouping/ and they’ve been picked up on maths errors. I would strongly suspect that the studies that they are looking at are just not able to be synthesised in the way they are attempting due to comparing apples and pears. In addition, the studies themselves are probably not great quality.

A great summary of how this specifically affects maths teaching is here: markmccourt.blogspot.com/2018/01/mixed-ability-vs-setting.html

I also seem to remember that the evidence for setting is positive for high ability but negative for low ability, and the EEF decided only to publish the negative figure for interests of social justice because low ability groups tend to contain more disadvantaged students.

DD's school had one "superset" for Maths in Year 7 from the start and then the rest were mixed. I think they then set completely at the end of the first term. I thought this was a good system - the top Maths students got to race away but no-one had the discouragement of being in the bottom set in the first term.

I'm doing my pgce at the moment and am currently writing an essay on the issue of setting.

The evidence is a study by Boaler (and others) which looked specifically at setting in maths classes; the conclusion was that for the vast majority of pupils, even those in top set, setting had negative implications. The exceptions were the small handful of pupils who were at the very top of set 1 - setting seemed to work in their favour.

From a teacher's persepctive, they like sets, because they believe that they can teach the whole class, as a whole, so, they assume, there is less need for differentiation.

I'm in bed now but when I get up I'll put the full title and authors of the study up. It's worth a read and it's certainly made me rethink the whole setting issue.

doodledott
It can work in subjects like English becausr the nature of the subject is different, though often schools will have a nurture group for those who require maths/English intervention so the very bottom end isn't in the mix.

E.g. If I teach Shakepseare in Y7 then it's also a text that can be studied to GCSE, A Level and degree level. With an able child they can be stretched further. It's also possible to have a couple of weaker students developing inference whilst others are doing analysis on the same text.

In maths it's a case of speed of progression through topics and fundamentally different topics at times which is why it doesn't work.

Mixed ability in English doesn't work if a child's/parent's idea of extension means 'give my child a different worksheet, find ways for them to race through class work to reinforce how smart they are and point out that they are doing the clever kid work', but if by extension you mean meaningful stretch and challenge, being asked to consider texts at a higher level, given prompts for a basic essay question that are more advanced and then it's absolutely possible.

There are pros and cons to both mixed ability and setting in English. Both can work well. Both depend on the quality of the teacher.

Boaler, J (2008) Promoting relational equality and high mathematics achievement through an innovative mixed ability approach

Boaler, J and Brown, M (2000)
Student's experiences of ability grouping - disaffection, polarisation and construction of failure

@AnnaFiveTowns I did the same essay on Jo Boaler on my PGCE and thought the same as you. It was experience in teaching that made me change my mind entirely, and since then I’ve found reason to be suspicious of her studies and claims.

There is in depth criticism of one of her studies here - www.nonpartisaneducation.org/Review/Articles/v8n1.pdf - suspicion is she isn’t entirely honest in her analysis.

Here’s a dissection of her claim that ‘mistakes grow your brain’ gregashman.wordpress.com/2015/11/17/can-jo-boaler-grow-your-brain/

Or you could have a look at the unsupported twaddle she spouts on twitter: twitter.com/joboaler/status/1038539906505756674?s=21
And there’s lots more where that came from.

So don’t put too much weight on Boaler when it comes to discussing setting in maths.

@AnnaFiveTowns @noblegiraffe
Thanks so much for the information - lots of reading for me!

I do want to approach the school to find out when/if they have plans to set for Maths and other subjects. I don't think they have set for English for any of my other DC so am less worried about that. Obviously they are not going to change their minds about the setting if the decision is already made so can anyone help with what to say, what I can realistically ask for? My personal concern is that DC continues to love the challenge of maths and continues to make progress, but I have no way of checking or quantifying that until he is assessed again so if they tell me they are differentiating within the class I just have to trust them. Sorry - I am no good with expressing myself face to face and don't want to make waves when actually there is nothing that is going to happen anyway.

Leaving Boaler aside, I've been ploughing through lots of academic papers on this subject, and I've yet to find one that argues the case for setting. At best the benefits appear to be negligible for pupils in set 1 maths.

The setting is exactly the evil that lays underneath the poor outcomes and very expensive education system where only 65% or so get good GCSE in key subjects at the end. Education systems without setting, such as in Finland, achieve much better outcomes for all segments of students at lower costs and with less collateral damage in broken lives of pupils with SEN and huge welfare benefit bills because people don't have the skills.

Setting only benefits the very few at the top, but those parents have much more powerful voices and everyone likes to believe that their DC are 'extremely able' even when they are actually average. The whole education system in this country is designed and run by people for people who want their DC to get to Oxbridge, at the expense of everyone else. Nobody speaks for the losers of the system. On MN mentioning the needs of achieving better outcomes for average students or those with average ability who are unjustly for various specific circumstances, such as unmet SEN, in lower sets is always ridiculed and shouted at. It is always satisfying to have someone lower on the ladder to kick in the teeth.

And there’s bog-all evidence to show that mixed ability is a fantastic way to teach maths either - as summarised in the Mark McCourt blog I linked to above, the evidence is weak and fuzzy. Dylan Wiliam (I think) reckons that the studies that have been done are rubbish anyway as they don’t look at teacher deployment.

One other thing to take into account is that if any studies have been done outside the UK, e.g. in the US, then mixed ability means something very different, as their classes are more homogenous in ability due to the use of grade-retention (resitting failed classes). In England there may be a 7 year spread in ability which is unusual internationally.

But in England maths teachers are mostly trains to teach sets. It requires an entirely different pedagogy to teach mixed ability and teachers need a lot of training and a huge new set of resources. This rarely happens. Teachers then end up teaching to the middle.

Ability is a biological factor that is homegenious internationally.
In England there may be a 7 year spread in ability which is unusual internationally.

That is not ability, but the spread in attainment resulting from setting starting in Reception. It pulls negligible differences in natural ability apart, spreads them ever farther apart based on sets teaching socioeconomic advantage of pushy middle class parents

Kids are not all of a similar ability. That’s nonsense.

The setting is exactly the evil that lays underneath the poor outcomes and very expensive education system where only 65% or so get good GCSE in key subjects at the end.
That has sod all to do with setting and everything to do with norm referenced GCSE grading.
E.g. only a set % can get a 4 or higher, a 7 or higher etc.

Whatever issues you have with setting (and both setting and mixed ability have pros and cons), don't try to blame setting for GCSE outcomes.

Obsessing with the difference in ability is nonsense. The best performing educational systems don't obsess on selection, but run methods that works for everyone, not just select few at the expense of the majority.

The whole obsession with ability is historic in this country, because initially state education for the poor was introduced based on ability, by selection. The underlying value system is that those not selected don't deserve education, they should stay manual labour. The rich on the other hand can afford to educate their offsprings of all ability. The times have changed though, in 21 century we don't need unskilled manual labour - many of them are on benefits. This is a very regressive outdated value system that waste human talent and is unsustainable. When AI and robots are poised to replace even white collar jobs, throwing away the talent of 35% to rot on benefits is absurd. Obsessing about the top set and the most able serves well only top 2% at huge human and financial expense for the 98%.

^norm referenced GCSE grading.
E.g. only a set % can get a 4 or higher, a 7 or higher etc.

Whatever issues you have with setting (and both setting and mixed ability have pros and cons), don't try to blame setting for GCSE outcomes.^

Yes, norm reference is part of the problem, but also the fact that those 35% can't answer enough of exam questions. It is not like they all answer 12 out 13 exam questions, but with subtle difference in depth...

I don't understand how you can pay for schools and teachers to teach a child of a 'normal' ability from reception to year 11, and result with that child not being able to answer more that 20% of questions, not being able to mean the most basic reference standard as GCSE?

On a conveyor belt no one would accept that 35% of production goes to waste.

Cakesandtea I'm sure you've had this debate elsewhere previously. You clearly have an axe to grind. Setting works brilliantly for most students in Maths. This is because being "better" at Maths requires more content in a way that other subjects don't. Take English, everyone learns the same books, some can develop their thinking towards higher grade answers. Maths is different. To get a grade 9 you need to cover (most) of the high level content. To achieve a grade 4 you don't. Therefore there are students that will never learn the sine rule, they don't need to, it won't be on their exam and frankly it's highly unlikely they will ever use it in life.

OP I'd be questioning their evidence, and asking for evidence that mixed ability is better.

And you clearly don't understand norm referencing. If the 35% did answer the questions, then the grade boundaries would be higher.

This is because being "better" at Maths requires more content in a way that other subjects don't. Take English, everyone learns the same books, some can develop their thinking towards higher grade answers. Maths is different. To get a grade 9 you need to cover (most) of the high level content. To achieve a grade 4 you don't. Therefore there are students that will never learn the sine rule, they don't need to, it won't be on their exam and frankly it's highly unlikely they will ever use it in life.

This is the manifesto of the set system. It is wrong and false on all levels. There is no reason to not teach all content to all pupils and Maths is not different. It is absurd. What do European systems do? Am I right that the French system teaches more maths content to all and more children pass? What about Finland? Are the French more able? Education system without sets teach all students all chapters in all subjects, the result would lay on a bell curve and that would reflect ability and effort and all that, but ultimately more students would reach required standard and all students would get equal opportunity. People in this country actually think their DC have equal opportunity. People believe there is no selection at 11. Yet, I doubt many realise that if their DC are not passing SATs at the age of 11, they likely to not have a shot at good GCSEs because of the sets system - they will never be taught the same chapters, and possible not even chapters to get a 5. This is not equal opportunity.