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.

If the 35% did answer the questions, then the grade boundaries would be higher.

Then there would be a robust discussion why boundaries are set at 65%, and not 95%

What percentage of Finns pass the equivalent of GCSEs in Finland?

I understand 80% of the French pass the BAC, which is equivalent to A levels

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/29e4a856-bad7-11e6-8b45-b8b81dd5d080

A brief Google shows why I would not be holding the French system up as a great example of Maths teaching.

Am I right that the French system teaches more maths content to all and more children pass?

Yes, maths ability is regarded as the most important measure of intelligence in France and it's taught up to age 17/18. However, according to our French friends, their education system is "all work and no play" - longer school day, much more homework and pupils are often asked to repeat a year - more so than in the USA. From next year, the compulsory school starting age is being lowered to age 3.

In Finland no one is pushed to become great, but no one gets left behind either
fillingmymap.com/2015/06/08/the-three-real-reasons-for-finlands-high-pisa-scores/

DCs at a high achieving comp. No setting for maths in year 7 BUT there are some extra sessions (maybe 1-2 week) for the most able children. Proper setting from year 8 I think and don't think it really mattered in the greater scheme of things. It is after all a marathon up to GCSE not a sprint.

Maths teacher here. Totally agree with Noble. I have taught mixed ability in an underperforming school which went from setting to mixed ability to improve results (based on some 'research' and an SLT with no knowledge of Maths). Results got worse. No training for teachers - it was a nightmare. If my current school changed its policy (set from week 1 based on SATS and review setting after test in October) I would leave and find another job. It benefits no student. I must say my current school - very strong comprehensive and very strong Maths results would NEVER do this.

No training for teachers everyone say mixed ability teaching requires training, all teaching requires training, so if you only train mixed ability teaching, there would be no difficulties and all pupils would benefit. The problem is set training in first place.

The thing is, teachers saying they would leave schools where it is inconvenient for them to teach does not really address the core issue of the outcomes for the majority included those left behind. I don't think a teacher declaring they don't want to teach is entitled to talk on behalf of all students.

Sets only benefit those at the top and disadvantage those in the middle and at the bottom. Those at the top would be at the top in any system. There is no overall advantage to anyone.

What does "very strong comprehensive and very strong Maths results" actually means? What percentage does not get grade 4?

The evidence isn’t strongly in favour either way, cakes. In which case it makes sense to go the way that is easiest for teachers given the appalling shortage of trained maths teachers and the high rate of burnout.

No one benefits from not having qualified maths teachers, not high, middle or low ability.

Cakes what happens to little Johnny who can't count to 20 accurately if he is sat next to Darren who is solving differential equations. They are both in year 11 so why not eh? None of the students win in that situation, they are so far apart they can't even comprehend the other ones thinking.
This is what would happen in mixed ability Maths. Or you would end up with a class within a class, teacher running around like a blue arsed fly and no one achieving much. Even primary school set for Maths from approx y4.

Obviously they are not going to change their minds about the setting if the decision is already made

It may not have been the maths department who made the decision, it may have been foisted upon them and well-informed parents pushing back will give them ammo to fight back.

Ask when they do set for maths, hopefully it would be Y8 the latest. Before then, ask what they do to ensure that each pupil is stretched and challenged and how they propose exposing your child to higher content in a class containing children who may struggle with basic arithmetic (they may have a separate class for the weakest). And ask what training the teachers have to teach in this way and how it differs to when they are teaching in sets.

Even primary school set for Maths from approx y4.

The average sized primary has 1 class per year group, so 'setting', in the sense of different teaching going on in different rooms, can't happen.

'Fixed groupings', with separate work, within a single classroom, does happen, but are increasingly regarded as limiting the progress of some children.

However, primary teachers are trained to teach mixed ability classes, which is perhaps the difference between them and secondary teachers - we are, after all, by definition 'Jacks of all trades'.

DS2 is at an academically selective independent. They don't set for maths in year 7.

They do in year 8.

Education is public service for the children, for all the children. It is difficult to see why it is OK to fail 35% for the 'convenience' of the teachers. Are you really advocating that, Noble?

I remember reading in another thread teachers' protestations that they do care and feel accountable for all children, however when asked to make it work for all children, they find it difficult, and walk out to find another job... Do teachers in Finland also walk out?

I am sorry, but I can't begin to imagine how teaching to teach mixed ability would reduce the number of teachers who apply for training. The applicants apply because of the overall appeal of the teaching career, not on the basis of the technicality their are not even aware of.

Cantkeep I know primaries near me combine years 4-6 for maths and then "set" up them. Also I know of another that does something similar with 5-6. It's not traditional setting as there isn't the staff capacity but it's a start.

I can't imagine trying to teach a group of 30 kids with a range of abilities from grade u - 9. Hats off to anyone that can make progess happen in that situation.

I meant to say that 'flexible groupings' - whole class teaching but with flexibility based on the progress of each child within each lesson - seems now to be the primary school norm EXCEPT for the very extreme (e.g. children with EHCP + 1:1 support working 4+ years behind will usually work on highly simplified versions of the same topic - so adding 1 to a small number rather than column addition of decimals).

Sounds like teachers in Finland don't go anywhere near the content of a grade 9 equivalent by the content of that article. If you are happy with all students achieving less then go right ahead.

I teach a group of more than 30 children with an ability spread of around 9 years every day, in every subject.

Even taking the extreme outliers out, a spread of 4-5 years in terms of academic development would be normal in an upper primary classroom - so an average Y4 or Y5 classroom will contain children working at the 'expected level' for every year from about Y2 up to about Y7.

That's what we are trained to do.

I am expected to make a year's worth of progress (at least) for every child in all core subjects - so at least expected level of previous year group to expected level of new year group. Preferably more - so more should leave me at expected who worked towards, and more at greater depth than arrived with me at expected levels for their age. Those working well below MAY make less progress, but the ideal is that they should make more to 'close the gap'.

Yes, we do work hard.

I'm sure you've had this debate elsewhere previously.
We have (now you mentioned it I can see parallels to last time cake was in a discussion on sets).
I'm reasonably sure the last big thread on setting ended up with arguing that it's always the worst thing on earth, teachers set kids up to fail and general axe grinding regardless of multiple posters (on all sides of the fence) offering nuanced debate.

Johnny who can't count to 20 accurately if he is sat next to Darren who is solving differential equations. They are both in year 11 so why not eh?

This is exactly because of sets, because of groups within class in primary school since Reception. Because that Johnny was left behind in year 1 for no good reasons. If teachers were made accountable to teach all children of normal ability to count to 20 in a proper year of primary school, they would not end up in year 11 not being able to access the material of GCSE.

DD year has sets from Y7

DS does not - however the tutor groups appear to be not as mixed as they once were!! High achievers are in 3 classes th lower achievers are in the bottom classes ..... appears to the schools way of getting round sets

Cakes, so you genuinely believe that the ONLY reason that Johnny can't count to 20 is because he was sitting at a different table within the same classroom (hearing the same teaching) early in his school career?

And FYI, yes of course we are held responsible - if I am to achieve my target for next year, my class has to, on average, make more than a year's progress,. each, in all core subjects.

Sounds like teachers in Finland don't go anywhere near the content of a grade 9 equivalent by the content of that article. If you are happy with all students achieving less then go right ahead.

That's absurd, Finland does better in PISA and then there is Barcelona equivalence. There is equivalent level of content in all the EU education systems. UK GCSE's are not above in content that in Finland, lol.

And the child who can count in the hundreds in Y1 cakes? Who can add, subtract, multiply and divide and is ready to explore fractions and geometry and negative numbers. What happens to them?
Oh wait, I know the answer to that one. They get to "master" the ability to count to 20 spin their wheels along with everyone else.

Anecdote is not data but here goes anyway.

My DD2 in y9 is progressing better and happier at secondary due to setting.
She is no longer in classes where the bright children are calling out the answer before she has even processed the question.
She doesn't have others looking over her shoulder and saying her handwriting is messy or her spelling is rubbish.
The teachers teach at broadly her pace, and explain concepts using language she can process.

The school reviews setting regularly and moving sets is possible in maths even between year 10 and 11 (I know because DD1 did just that).

It is so depressing to feel you are at / near the bottom of every single class you have (academic, PE, tech/arts). DD no longer has that, and it is fantastic.

In the US and France there's an element of setting because if you don't pass the exams you don't go up to the next year - so you have to understand at least some of the content for that year!