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.

*Adalind - that sounds very fair

Maisy - sad for the lack of continuity but good that you look out for each other (must be frustrating for teachers who know their subject but struggle with poor behaviour). At least the poor kids who want to learn in the disruptive set will not lose out too much.

Marco - I think cakes says that sets exacerbate differences even if they already exist for whatever reason.

Cakes - agree that retention in early years is very sensible. You seem to object less to grade retention as a means of reducing variability and improving teaching efficiency. Maybe retention before secondary school might also be beneficial? The downsides would lie in school sport and PSE (do teachers think there are any other downsides)?

Namenick,

Yes. Also before secondary. I don't think you can cope with secondary without understanding place value and division.

I agree that no solution would be without trade-offs, but grade retention at some key stages would allow to keep the access to good qualifications open and maximise the overall utility, i.e. outcomes, efficiency etc.

Absence of some skills at the age of 4 becomes a bigger problem at the age of 6 and an even bigger problem at the age of 11 and so on. So it is better for these children to address that first.

Retention at key stages of development for a small proportion of children is a better trade-off than charging ahead in full knowledge these children won't make it to good GCSE and beyond.

I think retention in early years would reduce the proportion of strugglers later. So it will not be like 35%. It would also solve the problem of the more able, if they start at 4.

I also think for the 2-3% of genuinely gifted there could be other options available in secondary.

And concerning PE and PSE, some of those children in primary are less mature anyway.

Concerning Further Maths, the French model does not depress maths excellence. Equivalent is Bac Scientific, which 27.5% pass. Grade 19/20 is probably as rare as 98% raw mark grade 9.

The case of two additional years of maths after Bac is irrelevant - Not additional money, they would be spent anyway, as it is a very specific case of being first two years of the Master course in selective Granges Ecoles.

Marco,

Sets exacerbate differences.

Yes there are differences in ability that fall on a bell curve. But they are narrow enough to fit most of the curve except the far edge in one class as it were, into a pipeline. At the end of the pipe, the grades would also fit on the bell curve. The best on top with exceptional marks, the least able with low marks. But more of the children will progress further in this way. 90% should be able to reach a passing standard. Especially if you narrow the differences between children who enter your class at the age of 4 to 7.

When you talk of a gap in your international school. How big a gap?
What % of your students are not going to pass the GCSE equivalent qualification at all? And how do the parents feel about that?

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%.

That is fantastic indeed. I wish my DC were in your class. It demonstrates that your practice is NOT representative of the majority of children. Nationally, 36% fall short of the standard, not 5...

Individual experience is very valid, but statistics tell the basis of reality.

I hope the 5% that didn't pass SATs in your class are not all with at least average or even 99% ability but with SEN? Because then they should have passed too.

We have more than 5% on the SEN register, if that is what you mean - but that is what you would expects, as many SEN won't affect Maths performance.

The thing is, we do EXACTLY what you object to, ie what you describe as 'setting' - grouping children with similar needs in some lessons in order to facilitate support and differentiation. Which is why I know that what you state as 'the problem' (in class grouping / table grouping / differentiation) ISN'T the problem.. or rather, it does not CAUSE the problem.

Interestingly in the primary thread It seems that some LAs and head teachers seem very against deferral of school for summer borns.

Anyone know why? I imagine implementing the french system of not starting based on not having acquired some skills would meet even more resistance. But it seems sensible to me if parent and child are ok with it.

Namenic, I don't tend to read primary threads, but my understanding is that (in England) summer borns don't have to start school until the after Easter but they have to join the same class. It isn't (to the best of my knowledge) a system whereby summer born children can wait and join the class the following year. So it would mean that those born in summer would essentially have lost two terms of schooling.

Adalind - what an odd policy?! I read somewhere that local authorities might not like it if parents re-apply to popular primary schools they didn’t get into first time. But there are ways around this - like having to declare late start before choosing school. Why are some people against it?

France is lowering the compulsory school starting age from age 6 to age 3 next year - all 3 year olds will have to attend a formal school setting from September 2019. President Macron wants to better integrate children with Muslim/Islamic heritage to counter extremism and to raise attainment levels amongst disadvantaged groups.

Namenic
Interestingly in the primary thread It seems that some LAs and head teachers seem very against deferral of school for summer borns

Whilst children from middle-class families might be arranging all sorts of stimulating activities for their pre-schooler - there are plenty of parents from disadvantaged/disaffected groups who would rather stay in bed than take their child to school at 8.30 am in the morning.

Whilst parents from middle-class families

France is lowering the compulsory school starting age from age 6 to age 3 next year - all 3 year olds will have to attend a formal school setting from September 2019.

This is pre-school of course, kindergarten, early-years type curriculum. Not like advancing starting Reception at 3 and Year 1 at 4!

Conceptually, they start 'proper' school later, at 6, they let children to stay children for longer, as it were. (Although as discussed above some children when they are ready can start earlier at 4)

They also compared data for children who started pre-school at 2. They found no difference in attainment at 15 and 18 between those who started at 2 or at 3, across all socio economics.

France is to make school compulsory from three years old, President Emmanuel Macron, has announced, insisting that the earlier children are in class, the higher their chances of success and integration in society

Currently, school is compulsory in France at the age of six, when primary school starts, but in reality the vast majority - almost 98 per cent - of three-year-olds attend nursery

Mr Macron said the time had come to cease seeing school at that age as “an option” and that the new rule would apply from the start of the school year in September 2019

The Elysée said that nurseries should no longer be viewed as places for “universal babysitting” but as a “proper school aimed at acquiring language and helping children flourish

The state will have to employ at least 800 more teachers to cater for the extra children

Clavinova - really? But even then, delaying a year isn’t the end of the world - they still get like 14years of education. Plus - it’s an extra year before the kid can start working... so wouldn’t thst be a disincentive?

I find it odd. But then myself and DSis were both august babies and my reception teacher told DM I might as well have not gone to school that year! I believe (but am seriously thinking back a number of years) that Scotland has a different system, whereby those born around the cut off can choose which year to go in to.

I’m a bit uneasy about making school/early years compulsory as macron would like it. I can understand it being a good environment for learning and not “babysitting” but it’s by no means the only way of doing it. He seems to think they can build national cohesion through this - which may work. But I guess you also have to think about relationships with parents and grandparents... I’m glad we have a choice in UK.