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.

Catchment two

I'm a bit late to this one, but I'm a big fan of loose setting (I teach physics). In my current school, our students are settled from year 9 but can move sets right up until February of year 11 for science. And there's always cross over - if the highest mark in set 2 is below the lowest mark in set 1 questions start to be asked. Borderline kids get moved up / down through discussion with the parent and child. I certainly know a few who prefer being at the top of a lower set and benefit from the self-confidence, and a few who prefer the pace of a higher set.

maisy, you're wrong on your last point. If there was a magic bullet which solved every issue regarding pupil outcomes, teachers would simply ignore it cos we're too wedded to our own preferences to want the best for the pupils in front of us .

wedded to setting/segregating children into academic ability groups (rather than making differentiated work available according to need in same classrooms)

Marytuda, cakes regards differentiated work in the same classroom, for example grouping within the classroom to facilitate e.g. access to adult support or particular work / resources, as setting as well.

Hence the fact that she states that setting in primary starts from reception, whereas in fact physical setting in different rooms is rare in average-sized primaries and even then only in upper primary.

I THINK this means that she thinks that, at least in primary, everyone in the classroom should be taught as a whole, all the time, and always given the same work - because any type of pragmatic day by day grouping to facilitate support / differentiation is described by Cakes as setting. At least, that's what i THINK she is saying. it's never been entirely clear.

Cantkeep,

If those groups in primary were not working as sets, but as additional opportunities to attain the required standard, then all but the bottom 10% of ability or severe SEN would reach the required standard at the end of Primary.

Only 64% reach the required standards in SATs . That means about 10% of children with average ability fall short, not to mention the further 15% of those with low-average ability.
Interestingly 64% tally with the 65% who pass GCSE English and Maths. So clearly the main damage is done in Primary school.
Those who fail SATs are mostly already outside the threshold for good GCSEs. Sets entrench and amplify the gaps in learning year on year, they prevent mobility upwards for those who develop later, like recently diagnosed DC with SEN.

Please engage with my post of Sun 11-Nov-18 07:48:42

Noble commented that teacher perceptions affect outcomes greatly. Surely this would play out massively in Primary school, where children are ranked neatly in tables and there is an underlying culture that the top table deserves all stops being pulled out, while the bottom table shouldn't hold anyone back and could settle for functional skills in adult education for £200, as Namenic put very articulately.
In a set up like this 6 years old children (of average or higher ability) at the bottom table don't have the same chances.

there is an underlying culture that the top table deserves all stops being pulled out, while the bottom table shouldn't hold anyone back and could settle for functional skills in adult education

You are very welcome to come to visit my classroom any time - mixed ability seating predominantly, with some flexible grouping lesson by lesson - to see whether your perception that 'the top table deserves all stops being pulled out' has ANY basis in reality.

I would say that, as no-one is ever going to say 'actually my child has exactly their fair share of teacher attention - no more and no less', I settle for equal numbers / proportions of parents, over time, complaining about 'not stretching the most able' / 'neglecting the middle ability' / 'settling for low attainment from those of lower ability' / 'not caring about children with SEN'.

It would obviously be NICER if everyone said 'yes, i can see you're doing your best to balance the needs of all children', but since that is utopia, I'll settle for a balanced diet of complaints...

Interestingly 64% tally with the 65% who pass GCSE English and Maths. Norm referenced exams...do you understand these now, cakes? We have explained it enough? The government sets the proportion of children who 'pass'. It is not a measure of an absolute standard, but rather the measure of what the government will allow.

If you define what 90% of children should be able to do at the age of 10 /11, and set tests which are referenced to that absolute standard', then 90% of children will pass, and that proportion will rise slightly each year.

However, if you set a curriculum, and then set tests which only 64% of children are ALLOWED to pass, then only 64% will pass, REGARDLESS OF WHAT STANDARD THE OTHER 36% HAVE REACHED.

(To be fair, the government will allow the percentage who are allowed to pass rise a little bit for each year they are in power. However, if this carries on for too long, then the next party in power will talk about 'grade inflation' and set a new, lower, percentage who can 'pass', against a different curriculum, and start the game again)

Neither SATs nor GCSEs are criterion-referenced exams. The proportion passing DOES NOT SHOW WHAT STANDARD CHILDREN HAVE REACHED. It is set by the government, and as a result it is impossible to infer what absolute standard pupils have reached at all.

6 years old children (of average or higher ability) at the bottom table

can you explain why any competent teacher would place these children omn that table? It is in no teacher's interest to artificially depress a child's attainment by restricting what they can learn.

If you are talking about un-diagnosed SEN - I am neither a paediatrician nor an Ed Psych. I pass evidence and observations onto both types of professional, but I cannot diagnose SEN. I can provide support to overcome it - and do - but I do not have the training to diagnose why a specific child might have an undiagnosed barrier to their learning.

So I don't sit there thinking 'X is of average or higher ability, but I will group them, in this lesson, with a few others needing some adult support, just because I want to restrict their progress.'

I can, and do, think 'Y is finding this particular topic very hard, and would benefit from some extra time in a small group, as well as support in class. I don't know whether it is due to their specific learning difficulties, or just it's an area they find hard - but we'll all work together, using all the tools at our disposal, to help them overcome their difficulty'.

But then, we only have around 5% not achieving the required standard at the end of KS2 (standard state primary), much better than your target of 10%.

Sorry, to add more detail again:

Year 6 SATs are neither criterion-referenced nor particularly well norm-referenced.

The 'expected standard' is an arbitrary politically-driven measure, announced by the Secretary of State each year. It is not a measure of a standard reached, of a body of knowledge gained, a percentage in well-standardised tests...or anything, really. It is arbitrary....

AdalindShade
maisy, you're wrong on your last point. If there was a magic bullet which solved every issue regarding pupil outcomes, teachers would simply ignore it cos we're too wedded to our own preferences to want the best for the pupils in front of us.
Naturally!
I don't know about you but when I came into teaching it had nothing to do with wanting to encourage children to achieve their potential at all. I just wanted an easy life and to condemn 80% of the students in front of me to a life of despair and misery.

Gosh cantkeepawayforever, surely you aren't still trying to point out the obvious point about norm referenced qualifications? I thought we established pages and pages ago that 120% of students should be above a norm referenced threshold and that should be achieved without any manipulation or change to specifications/qualifications whilst also requiring us to use our imaginations to make changes.
You don't get it do you, it doesn't matter what nuanced understanding you have or what practical experience you have, sets are always always wrong, ability grouping is always wrong and the existence of anything acknowledging different levels of ability is causing mental health issues and unemployment. Hell itself will open up and it'll be because someone somewhere once was given a differentiated worksheet.
(And now I'll get into trouble for using hyperbole because in some weird world hyperbole and sarcasm is proof that you love making children fail)

Cakes - you can have sets/tables AND give additional help to people on the bottom table/class (eg additional teaching assistant). If you are saying that inevitably sets mean that upper sets get the best teachers or more teacher time - I don’t know - maisy?

Most people will agree that earlier intervention is better - (like cakes’ example from France). Have you considered that additional resources for bottom set/table may be more efficient than spreading these over the whole class? Does the targeted intervention in France counts as a ‘set’?

Cakes you have ignored my question about the spread of ability in a school with no setting. Or don't my students count because they are foreign, and not even European?

Am not a teacher so have no real contribution to make but I do wonder if this is likely to be the OPs longest thread but one that has largely ended up down a cake shaped rabbit hole. But as the mother of a yr11 girl, I'll say thank you teachers for all you do

Namenic
It will depend on the staff available in my experience.
If a school has a department full of qualified subject specialists then they are in a better position to try to match staff to groups.
If you have a school that has 2 qualified specialists and the rest unqualified or non specialists then there's a much trickier decision to be made. In my experience the top and bottom tend to get the preferential staffing when there's difficult decisions to make on staff and groups.
In the last few schools I've worked in it was also common for the heads of department to teach classes that were borderline or had a bit of catching up to do.

In my experience it comes down to schools making the best decision they can for tjeir cohorts with the staff they have and their contexts. There's no easy solution.

myrtleWilson Cake shaped rabbit hole
Thank you for all your support. Y11 parents are usually awesome.

From my personal experience setting worked for me. Not because I was more intelligent but because it meant the behaviour in the higher set was better and therefore less stressful to learn.
I got absolutely fed up being called a snob at school for wanting to learn. Being in the top set for things helps avoid that.

Maisy
Thanks. Useful to hear from the front line. I expect teachers would like to do much more but are struggling with lack of staff and resources. A bit like nhs.

Biolog Though what you have just said could be a very strong argument against setting.

My DD wants to learn at school, but she is never going to make it into top sets. It isn't fair/right that she should have a disproportionate amount of poorly behaved pupils in her class. If anything she needs fewer poorly behaved to help her concentrate, and have the teacher time.

(As it is behaviour at her school is pretty good, and setting often means top sets have more pupils in than lower sets, so strugglers get the attention they need which also helps behaviour.)

Namenic, my school tends to mix it up in science. So a child who has the head of chemistry won't also have the head of physics and biology. Equally, no child will have NQTs for all three sciences. And all teachers have a mix, so while I may have top set year 10 I also have bottom set year 9. There are also sometimes specific requests, such as the head of biology wanting set 3 for year 10 because there's a couple of difficult characters and he is good at keeping them in line.

I really must remember to thank the person who sorts it all out, timetabling seems like a nightmare job!

Namenic,

Most people will agree that earlier intervention is better - (like cakes’ example from France). Have you considered that additional resources for bottom set/table may be more efficient than spreading these over the whole class? Does the targeted intervention in France counts as a ‘set’?

What French policy seem to be is to enable some children to mature, to develop the necessary neurocognitive skills in Early years, in a formal compulsory preschool curriculum before they enter into the the proper Primary school. Their data show that this reduced the number of children who get behind vs peers in class at the age of 6 and 7, which was the biggest problem, but also reduced the number of children who can't keep up throughout the school career. The intervention as it were is to retain selected children in early years to help them to develop to the level at which they would cope better in school. It is a structured early years curriculum, not baby sitting.

The disadvantage for summer borns throughout the school career is well documented. But there is a broader scope for differences in maturity and neurocognitive 'readiness' - children on autism spectrum and other neurodevelopmental disorders for example.

It is a matter for neurocognitive scientist, but it is well known that huge development takes place in the brain between 4 and 7. Language , executive functioning for example. Certain mix of cognitive skills is necessary to cope well, to keep up in mixed ability education. The French seem to keep some children in EY before they develop this mix.

French 'normal' year of starting primary school is 6. But their policy seem to be to enable some children to start first year of primary school at 4, some at5, at 6, at and even at 7 (1.2%). As a result all the year groups are mixed age, but might actually have a more narrow spread of 'ability'. The class constituted like this is a set of sort, and it copes better with the pace of the curriculum throughout. Maybe a small fraction of the most able can also skip a year forward, I am not sure, there is a handful of 15 years olds starting university, though I am not suggesting to do this.

The result of this policy seem to be rapid, drastic reduction in the number of children who can't keep up with the mixed ability class.
The other result is they were able to increase the pass rate at 15 to 90%, and at 18 to 80% of population. It resulted in better outcomes for more children. They still have a smaller group of 7% of children who fall behind at some stage of school and may even leave school at 18 without any qualifications (Clavinova's 100k), but this is a smaller minority (10%-12.5% of population) then before.

Namenic
It's the same old story of years of underfunding and a shortage of staff.

Generally schools will make mid year changes if need be. (E.g. I've lost some lovely classes that i'd got settled and dping immaculately in January because it became clear a colleague was struggling with a class). The response (after other avenues were tried) was to swap in an experienced teacher and/or someone known not to take nonsense to try and prevent a sink group forming.

It comes down to how many staff you've got and what strengths they have. E.g. a former colleague at one school would be terrible teaching a top set at my current school but there are colleagues in my department who are never given the nurture groups because they don't have that strength. If you have a full department of good staff you have more flexibility than if you are a school that struggles to recruit.

The other result is they were able to increase the pass rate at 15 to 90%, and at 18 to 80% of population.

Is the French system norm-referenced or criterion referenced?

I am going to repeat my previous post as I am still waiting for cakes to answer it.

@cakesandtea
I teach in an International School. We don't set until the equivalent of year 10. Yet there are gaps in knowledge and understanding in year 10 and also in year 7.

I assumed this was due to the students being of different ability. They have been taught in mixed ability classes all their lives and they are a range nationalities.

Please impart your wisdom on why there is this divide?
Just to repeat, they have always been taught in mixed ability classes.

Late to the party
My dd's school doesn't set until year 9.
Year 7 & 8 they are encouraged to love learning.