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.

Setting worked well from year 7 for both of my girls. It was a selective school, so obviously the ability range it covered was much smaller than would be the case in other schools, but even so it still had a wide range of ability for maths.

Older daughter was in set 2 of 5, then dropped to set 3 at GCSE. She was good, but not brilliant, so it was just right for her and she still went on to do well at A level. Younger daughter is dyslexic and found maths difficult. Bottom set was right for her throughout.

You could argue that it is the hard work and total re-planning of the curriculum and resources that has resulted in the improvement

Indeed when something is a focus, it tends to improve, especially if it involves people working their arses off.

Unfortunately working your arse off is not sustainable in the long-term.

Noble, to clarify:

• The _change_ involved us working our arses off
• Now it has happened, it is no harder work than teaching sets, but that is of course partly because all primary school teachers are trained to teach fully mixed ability classes, including SEN, in all subjects

One other thing to throw into the discussion, because again it has been an experience locally - it seems quite common for secondary schools to pitch Y7 teaching (in many subjects) at too basic a level. This may be because at the very beginning of the year, pupils will seem to 'know nothing' - often a long break after SATs and the overall effort of transition has this effect, and we see a similar effect after the summer holidays in all years in primary. If that happens within a school, it's easy to say 'look guys, you could do this in July, let's put our backs into it', whereas I can see that after transition into secondary the practice may be to say 'they were coached for SATs / they never knew this / the teaching was pitched very low on primary so we need to go back'.

As a result, more able children, and indeed many middle ability pupils too may well get very bored in Y7 if taught in exactly the same mixed ability groupings they experienced - and made great progress in - in primary. That in turn can lead to a feeling from parents that 'sets are necessary because what they are being taught is too basic'

Locally, there's starting to be a bit of a shake-up after various events led to the discovery that much Y7 work was being pitched closer to Y4/Y5 than the work those same students were doing in Y6 in primary - and in many subjects, closed, too-simple tasks were preventing those children from showing what they could truly do. Lots of visits from secondary teachers to primaries and re-writing of SoW.

It would be really interesting to compare the Maths SoW for Y7 for the 4-18 school another poster mentioned, and an 11-18 school with a similar ability cohort. The 4-18 school would, culturally, feel able to rely on 'what had been taught' to a much greater extent from the off in Y7 - it would be interesting to see what they teach and at what pace.

DCs school sets for Maths in Yr7, Maths and Science in Yr8. Never sets in English or other subjects.

However, the smart cookies always seem to be in the same 2 groups whatever the subject.

I’m not in favour of it anymore than I am with the expected grades approach. It’s too much pressure. There are also too many tests and I definitely neither want nor need a termly snapshot grades report. Moreover the setting of tests after the full report in Summer Term is appalling. The scheduling of a test in the final week of the school year, unforgivable.

Traditional comprehensive education never did me any harm and I think we are breeding a nation of kids on the verge of nervous breakdowns.

The difference isn't how students are taught (in a lot of cases) instead it is students ability to retain and process information.

That difference is relatively small in 'normal' population.
If there are significant differences, it is a child with SEN. For these children, their needs must be met. Currently, especially with cuts, the SEN system is like a fortress that you need to siege and battle for years before getting in. Just a taste here.. In this time DC with SEN suffer, lose confidence, develop anxieties, psychological problems, get behind.

SEN does not equate to low ability at all, they just have specific barriers that need to be addressed.

Poor outcomes are always excused by 'low ability', but genuinely low ability children are just 2%-10% of population, depending where you draw the line. Nobody argues they should have GCSEs grade 9.

Average is 90-109 IQ and starts at 25%-tile.

Within those 35% who don't get good GCSE Eng&Maths, 15% are in below average (80-89) and 10%, i.e. a third, are within average range of ability IQ>=90.

Some like to draw the line at IQ 85, that is 15%-tile, then 20% within the 35% would be within average ability range.

DC with the whole range of good ability from low average IQ>= 80 to very superior IQ>= 130 can have SEN. If the needs were really met timely and properly, these children would progress at broadly the same rate. But yes, they do cascade down to bottom set because of lack of provisions and because some cynical schools equate SEN with low ability.

The bell curve is the same in all countries, yet in other countries get better educational outcomes for 80% or more of their population without sets. It is not the ability, it is the system that is the problem and sets are exactly the instrument that drags down the average and below average children, locks them out of good outcomes.

They can't climb out because they are not taught the same material.
Some children are in secondary modern since Reception, those on the lower 'tables', the parents just don't realise that.

Some children are in secondary modern since Reception, those on the lower 'tables'

Cakes, how much time have you spent in primaries over the last few years?

Is your daily experience in all of these primaries that children sit in fixed ability tables, absolutely deaf and blind to any teaching going on to the whole class but absolutely limited by who they sit with??

I get that children in secondary 'sets' don't access particular teaching, because it is in a different room. I know that children in secondary moderns can't access some teaching, because it is in a different institution. But i do think the argument that just because a child sits at a particular table, for some of the time (and as I have said before, fixed ability-based table grouping is increasingly uncommon in primaries ime), they cannot access any other teaching and are thus barred from making progress is...far fetched.

Some children are in secondary modern since Reception, those on the lower 'tables'

Surely the issue with secondary moderns is things like:

• triple science not offered because not enough pupils want to do it to make it viable
• 2 MFL not offered because not enough pupils want to do it to make it viable
• Oxbridge / top uni application support not available or weak because not enough able students to give the staff sufficient experience
• Poverty of aspiration having 'failed' age 10
• Reduced % of well off and interested parents as if they fail grammar they go private instead, meaning that schools are not 'pushed' as much by the parent body's expectations (& don't receive PTA donations either for extras)

None of these have anything to do with flexible table groupings in primary schools.

Dermyc,

why would I try
Why would I teach
How would they access
I'm better off

I, I , me, me, me...

This is the problem, the system's and some teachers' near contempt for best interests of 35% of pupils they simply are allowed to discard, to leave behind. They don't need to try, they are better off focussing on the top set, that's the only thing that matters to them.
Any suggestion of change is met with anger, ridicule and dodging the point.

The 35% don't fail to get GCSE grade 4 because teachers don't care or try. That's an outrageous thing to say!

They don't get there because of a combination of factors which may include a number of:

• lack of funding for 1-1 support
• lack a parental input at home due to time / ability / interest
• SN / SpLD
• not being academic enough to access the content
• mental health issues
• outside stress issues such as parent being ill
• lack of motivation / effort from themselves

That’s because, cakes, teachers do not simply discard their bottom sets to fester in a corner. They work bloody hard for them.

Teachers work with individuals, not statistics.

Any suggestion of change is met with anger, ridicule and dodging the point.

Cakes, you are dodging the points that we are making: could you reply to my post of 15:21 please? Thanks.

35% fail to get GCSE grade 4

because that's the way the assessment system is set up.

The government could dictate an assessment system whereby the Grade 4 mark was set such that 95% got Grade 4 or above. Or 99%. Or 5%.

Because of the way grade boundaries are set, if teachers teach a child to move out of the bottom 35%, all that happens is the boundary moves up a bit, to maintain that percentage as 35%.

This is NOT the fault of teachers, but the way the qualification system is designed.

fixed ability-based table grouping ... in primaries ..., they cannot access any other teaching and are thus barred from making progress is...far fetched.

They are progressively 'barred', because as early as Reception they don't have the methods they needed, the time they needed, they don't receive support when needed, when it would have prevented the gap, so the gap opens, and soon they start working on lower material, have less time to learn higher material, soon they can't understand some of the explanations because they are just beginning the 'middle' material, which is critical to get the higher concept. It becomes structural, the train has left and is running too fast for them to jump back, even if they are capable, even if they sit in the same room.

When Y2 teaching becomes writing based, if DC with dyslexia or other
problems aren't confident at reading, they are excluded from the whole lesson. Their confidence dies and with it their ability to accelerate and catch up.

The nature of sets in primary is that the pace and methods are serving the top set. It's a runaway train that does not look back. Parents scramble to tutor DC not on the top table on Kumon 3 times a week since year 1, to not get behind. But those without money or with SEN can't help it.

You missed the first bit: how much time have you spent in primaries over the last few years?

they don't receive support when needed, when it would have prevented the gap

Again, ime- in a primary every school day of the year - where children sit in an ability-based way at all, it is exactly so that they can receive the targeted support they need. Also, in every primary of my experience, every spare moment - and many that are not spare - will have small groups or individuals having specific input to prevent a gap opening or fill a gap that is just opening up.

Parents scramble to tutor DC not on the top table on Kumon 3 times a week since year 1

Evidence? In every primary? Really??

Cakes you are so far from the truth it's scary. You haven't addressed my point, instead you have attacked teachers. You provide no solutions to the practical problems people have listed, instead you have waxed lyrical about a system you a have sent one child through.

Believe me there is multiple early intervention at primary, and this is followed up in secondary. When I think about the students who haven't achieved grade 4, most of them struggle wihh retention. They achieved similar grades in other subjects, again due to lack of retention.

cakes Can you remind me of your qualification / experience in this?

I am a parent of 2 mid-low ability teen DC with SpLD, but have high maths ability myself and have some experience helping others with maths.

What you say doesn't chime with my experience of primary or secondary. It doesn't chime with my experience of helping my DDs with maths. It also doesn't chime with my understanding of constraints of school funding and teacher time.

I can see how an argument can be made for mixed ability teaching in some subjects.
I also agree that firm setting in primary is probably not helpful.
But I really, really, struggle to conceive how my friend's DS (currently doing FM A level) could have been taught maths in a class stretching down past my DD1 (high B) towards my DD2 (probably 4/5) down to those who get grades 2/3.
I'm pretty certain that friend's DS could do maths age 7/8 that my DDs struggle(d) with age 14.

the pace and methods are serving the top set

I think you have the language - and therefore the lame - incorrect in this, as in much else.

I would agree to a differently-made point: that the 'year group' curricula for some primary years, as set by the Government, are very ambitious. This is perhaps more the case in English grammar and terminology (is the notion of the 'present perfect' tense age appropriate for 7 year olds, for example?) than in Maths.

However, that is very far from being teachers' fault, as is the percentage of children allowed to attain a 'pass' mark in GCSEs or SATs - so please ascribe blame where it is due.

lame = blame, sorry.

The nature of sets in primary is that the pace and methods are serving the top set.

What do you think would happen if the same pace and methods were applied to the children in the bottom set?

"the pace and methods are serving the top set"

Yeah, they really aren't.

Maybe we should just loosen the age range and speed of education. Don’t take GCSEs until ready - even if that is 18 or 20 (maybe the lower sets can take 1 or more extra years to cover material - in the long run this is not a lot).

Maybe also have a literacy and numeracy qualification that is based on a fixed standard rather than % of year group - tbh many jobs do not require trig or quadratics but loads require fractions, decimals, times tables.

As a society we have a lack of highly skilled mathematicians (especially maths teachers!), physicists and engineers so we need to train the top end (more than 2%!) to fill these.
But we also have a lack of skilled builders and technicians who may not need all of gcse maths but need a very strong grasp of basics. These careers can provide a good income even though they are not traditionally academic.

No one suggests we should all have the same teaching for sport. I suppose if we did then we might not have as many talented athletes...

No one suggests we should all have the same teaching for sport

But that's where you earn the prizes at prize giving

I work in a primary that doesn't set. Children all sit through the same input and there are highly skilled support staff in the lesson who support the less able. Outside of lessons children get extra from support staff on top to plug gaps. You still get children going up to secondary who range from those who don't know all their tables,struggle with for example the concept of multiplication and thus more complex multiplication,fractions,decimals,2 step problems etc to those who could cope with foundation level GCSE papers. Suggesting all should be grouped together in secondary sounds like insanity to me. Where is the money for high skilled support staff? Where is the time for off timetable interventions? What are those who struggle with basic concepts supposed to do when others in their class are focusing on the advanced GCSE papers and further maths?. Surely you could only teach to the middle and have half the class incredibly frustrated.

www.strangerless.com/truth-finnish-education-system/

Re the often applauded Finnish system the above is interesting. They enjoy complete equality. Private schools are banned. Every class has an additional SEN teacher and teachers are free to teach how they choose. They also do have schools for those with SEN. In a country where some children get 70% more funding and most schools struggle to fund the basics I doubt a fully qualified SEN teacher in every class would work.