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.

They don't just hold you back in the US, they accelerate able students too. This is a mistake imo and can lead to all sorts of social problems (bit like leeping kids back in fact) but its certainly not an education system where mixed ability is king.

Cakes read further about the pisa questions, some curriculums are better designed to pass them than others.

With the greatest of respect the level of maths you are dealing with at primary spans in theory 6 years, to a secondary teacher that knowledge is about 2 years worth combined. The top end suffer from setting and you know it.

Little Johnny wasn't left behind, he had multiple interventions, small classes, 1:1, sadly his home life was such that he would not be able to retain knowledge. He isn't a one off. There are many Johnny's in secondary. You forget how much bigger secondary schools are.

It is difficult to see why it is OK to fail 35% for the 'convenience' of the teachers.

They don’t fail for the convenience of teachers, don’t be ridiculous.

As I said, the evidence for mixed ability versus setting doesn’t fall heavily in favour either way. There is a workload and skill difference, mixed ability needs a lot of skill, that we are severely short of, and a bigger workload which would make us even shorter of teachers than we are already.

Losing teachers reduces quality hence there’s an argument for setting as both a teacher retention tool, and to lessen the effects of the shortage of qualified maths teachers.

And the child who can count in the hundreds in Y1

What percentage of those? How did that happen? Is it because that child's parents hothoused that child since nursery to get into the top set, because it is how the system works? That's exactly the problem with sets. What difference would it make in the big picture? The result that this child would achieve at the age of 16 would not be different to the result she would have achieved, had she not been tutored to count in nappies. Eventually GCSE are equivalent to other countries content at similar age, and so are A levels. Are UK GCSE students with grade 9 smarter than the French who get 19/20, or the Finns, but were not taught in sets? If that child is able, she will be on top of the cohort anyway. There is no need to sacrifice those in the middle and at the bottom to serve the competitive overdrive of a small fraction of parents.

For the genuinely gifted and talented 2%, you can have a selective advanced classes. But there is no need to drag down the life chances and leave behind the 35% by putting all children through sets.

And yes, I can't think of any reasonable explanation aside from the sets in primary for a child with 'normal' ability not being able to count to 20. The sets leave children behind since Reception, and thus create barriers for further progress. Those left behind can never catch up because of sets, they get further and further behind every year. They say horses can count to 4.

Define normal ability. My bottom set last year was 100% students with SEN. Are they not normal? A third of my school has SEN, is that your 35%? You live in a dream land so far away from reality.

How did that happen? Is it because that child's parents hothoused that child since nursery to get into the top set, because it is how the system works? That's exactly the problem with sets
And this is the problem with trying to debate with you cakes. You're so obsessed with your way being the only way that you make sweeping claims to prove whatever point you're on.

I can't believe you're going as far as suggesting parents who do anytging educational with their child is proof sets are evil. Heaven forbid parents happen to have exposed them to things for a love of learning or to lay strong foundations in learning. Children develop at different rates.
What you seem to be suggesting repeatedly is that the bell curve doesnt exist and that able children should be held back because you don't think there's a spread of abilities.

Noble, you do argue that it is OK to leave 35% behind because it is easier that doing something different. Fundamentally, because nobody is counting the cost and is accountable for the failure of those 35%. The parents of those 35% in the main are less vocal and are not putting their feet down. It is the parents whose children are at the top that matter.

You would not argue that it is OK to scrap 35% of cars on the conveyor for not meeting quality standards, because increasing quality would require more skilled workers and that's effort, so let's not train our workers, let's not improve quality.

Those 35% of children are not widgets. They deserve every bit as much skill and investment and accountability from the public service. Why do 80% of French pass the BAC?

No, no hot-housing. So could you answer the question. What should be done with that child in maths?

What you appear to be proposing is able children be prevented at learnjng at their own pace . Do you think that should hold for English too? No reading above yellow band because Johnny can't? No writing more than 3 sentences because Emily isn't ready yet?

The French curriculum is rigid and limited - there is very little art, drama, music or sport and 30% of French children repeat a year at some point in their schooling.

Noble, you do argue that it is OK to leave 35% behind because it is easier that doing something different.

No. I work my arse off to get kids the best maths education that I can give them, and for me that is teaching them in sets. And I’m pretty good at it.

We used to teach mixed ability in Y7 and I was shit at it. I felt like I was failing both the top and bottom end while running myself ragged. Thankfully the rest of the department agreed and we switched to setting from near the start of Y7.

I know some teachers in another school who have just started teaching mixed ability and they are encountering the exact same problems I did. It was foisted on them, they had no training or preparation time and they are tearing their hair out. That’s not benefitting the pupils.

Say DC-A can pick up and remember a concept in 20 mins, and it takes DC-B 2hrs and she forgets it and needs to be reminded twice more at an hour a time. (And no I don't think these are unreasonable times based on my DC).

So DC-A needs 20mins, DC-B needs 4hrs.
Repeat for every single maths concept.

How do you want to manage this?

1. Send DC-A off to learn another subject in the extra 3hr40mins? (So DC-B misses out on that other subject)
2. Make DC-B spend 'non-school hours' catching up? (So they miss out on extra curricular activities, and they quite probably need more down time than A anyway)
3. Just accept that over time DC-A will grasp concepts easier and gradually move ahead in maths?

Wrt the French, what happens to students with SEN there? Is there a grammar style system whereby it's 80% of the kids who get into certain schools achieve that grade? I'd be suspicious of any system that claimed 80% of a whole cohort achieved A level maths.

TeenTimesTwo
You don't get it.
The very fact a child might grasp something quicker is proof that sets are evil.
Child 1 only gets something quicker because they've been in sets or groups and they only end up in those groups because they have been hot housed since the womb to get into top sets.

If there were no sets then no parents would do anything educational and all children would be roughly the same ability (except the 2% who are really clever but the rest are about the same). Without extra stimuli then all students could do the same work and that would prove that there isn't a bell curve at all because 95% of students would reach the same standard.

Keep up.

P.s. teen that was sarcasm

spot on Maisy!

If only. Then I wouldn't have needed to re do percentages with DD1 every year to y11. Or spend numerous occasions re-covering exothermic v endothermic reactions.
And DD2, 14, would know her left from right, would be able to tell the time, and know her times tables. (She can however solve simple quadratic equations).

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!

Dyslexic childrennwould struggle to pass these tests. Doesn't mean they don't understand.

It's possible that Jane can tell the time and Dave can do all the times tables - neither is more able in maths - it's just that they enjoyed learning that part of maths

There are 3 different types of Bac qualification and 3 different types of upper secondary school.

^From age 15 students enter the Lycée period of education...
Academic pupils will move onto a lycée général or lycée technique, while less academic may go to a lycée professionnel^

10-15% of French students drop out every year, without passing any qualifications.

Oh, and students in Finland don't enter university until age 19 or 20 - their upper secondary education lasts for 3 years (16-19) and sometimes 4 years.

Maisy, you are good at hyperbole, distorting and ridiculing what I say, but I don't find anything fun in perfectly able children being failed.

I have seen countless threads about parent's anger of DC not being in top set, but not many threads from parents hoping their DC will do better in bottom sets, 'at their pace'. Sets are only good for those for whom it is working. But bright DC will always end up up on top, in any system. Sets make no difference in outcomes at the top, they make huge difference in the lower half.

Why do the Finns and French and most other developed countries manage to teach more of their children to pass? How many developed countries have secondary school failure rate of 35%?

I am sure pass rate in the UK is 98% or something but what do I know.

My DD is bottom set for maths - because he's Dyslexic. He can't keep up with the top sets. He's bright and able. He can't retain the intern instructions of the top sets.

A slower pace in a smaller group allows him to achieve without feeling like a failure.

DD is top sets she keeps up and excels because she can.

Both would fail in middle sets because one would be bored and one would find it too quick.

Mix ability can work - for some but not all.

Oh and for the record I taugh my children loads before starting school and during their school years.

I'm glad I did, otherwise DS wouldn't even go to school bacsie he would totally refuse

cakesandtea
There are areas of improvement in all education systems. You keep repeating 35% of people are being failed and then going on about setting. Then make the classic mistake that people make which is 'yeah but... look at a system that is totally different in multiple ways but they do the thing I like so I'll pretend that's the only variable that matters'.
Shanghai schools also do really well for maths. Equally a number of Asian set ups produce excellent results based on international tables (which have their own pros and cons). I assume you're happy with those systems of tutoring, night schools until 10/11pm, mental health issues etc? Or is it just systems that do what you think is best that should be emulated?

Your lack of nuanced understanding of education and inability to construct a coherent, reasonable argument is what I find a little amusing.

Maysy, but you 'find' any argument that challenges the outcomes and goes against the conventional wisdom 'incoherent'.

There are huge amounts of tutoring, pressure and MH issues in this country.

You have not engaged with core argument, just dodged it by calling me names :)

cakes Can you solve the conundrum I posted at 20:09?