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.

Maisy I agree regarding teaching to the top of a group and supporting the bottom. That's how I try and structure my lessons at secondary.

The outliers would become more extreme at secondary due to the increased number of students. Therefore setting helps to keep students in a non outlier environment which benefits them all. I currently have a Y7 group who were set on an average of their ks2 scores, I have students ranging from 84-116 maths score in the same room. I am not trained to teach this and the top end need more content, meanwhile the bottom end can't access how to draw a pie chart because they don't know how many degrees are in a circle. It's not fun for anyone.

Str1ngofhearts,
The article rehashes some stereotypes but does not fit with French statistics. They improved outcomes massively last few years: 90% pass the Brevet (GCSE); 90% pass the Bac each school year e.g. 2018. Yes, there is repeating of the year by about 10%, and taking this into account they calculated that “in a generation”, meaning by year of birth, 79% pass the Bac (page 222 of the pdf). That is a composite of 6 compulsory subjects at A level. Incidentally, the stark inequalities the French complain about are that 82% of children of the unemployed pass the Bac in a school year, vs 95% of children of teachers. With all its problems, this does much better for much more children.

A-level outcomes are something like 34% at grades C+

Comparing other countries is a pointless exercise as there are so many other variables.
Of course there are many variables and many variables need to be re-examined for a meaningful improvement in outcomes.
It makes perfect sense to clearly see the big picture that other systems without sets provide better outcomes for more pupils. This debate essentially is about what to do about the 35%. My point is, you cannot improve that without abolishing sets. As a first step, abolishing sets in Primary, and extending the KS4 for lower sets by a year or whatever to cover the full curriculum.

Maisy,

It is the other way around, really.

Hiding behind nuanced minutia is incoherent. Denying facts is incoherent. Surgeons who fail all of the difficult patients and half of the mid-difficult patients and only do well for the easy patients would not be allowed to practice. Not on the difficult patients at least. That is the point really.

Just cut the c£%^"p and give your coherent argument how you are going to make 90% of the cohort in UK to get grade 4 and above in Maths GCSE (I mean reaching the standard required, not diluting or reframing)

cakes I asked upthread about your qualifications / experience, but I don't think you answered?

Are you a qualified teacher, if so what subject/level and how many years?
Or maybe a TA?
Or an academic?

Or a parent of a child you feel was failed by setting?

Or an interested bystander?

Or what?

Namenic,
you are right that kids with SEN or low ability should also be taught well - probably in smaller groups with an experienced teacher - so they get more attention. I’m just not sure that not having sets is gonna be beneficial to them?

But that is a conflation that does not benefit either DC with SEN or those with low ability. Sets create most of their problems in first place. It could also be argued it is a form of discriminatory segregation. Segregation by sets slows down the progress at the bottom and in the middle, it does not accelerate it to the same pace as on the top by using alternative / additional teaching.

I will omit discussing advantages of sets at the top, because the most able will be on top in any system. There is no material disadvantage to them either way. There is no sign that in countries without sets able DC are dying of boredom. They are doing just fine.

First, SEN does not mean low ability. Some SEN involve learning disabilities but a lot of them, such as autism, dyslexia, can occur in DC of all, including very high ability. Those DC with SEN with average and high ability will require specific specialist intervention to meet their needs, not just generic more attention in a sink ‘low ability’ group. It would do nothing for the SEN and slow their progress and open up a gap. That would actually fail them and it does.

Sets do not means more attention and experienced teachers. Noble argued this emphatically. It follows from Noble’s and others’ argument about teacher training and resources that sets mean less attention and less experienced teachers. The physics of sets is that it avoids effort to accelerate progress by slowing down the whole set, each progressive set getting slower and slower. Sets do slow down the progress in the middle and at the bottom.

If sets were not slowing down the progress, children in lower sets would stay within the same progress threshold as top sets, i.e. would have good GCSEs and be able to access the higher paper, be it with lower result. The system is designed to have grade 4 after 12 years of school. The fact they can’t access the same curriculum and miss grade4 all together means their progress was slower than that for which the system is designed. They were pushed off the conveyor belt. That is not satisfactory.

Sets do mean diminished opportunity enforced by structural barriers in the organisation. Sets put a ceiling, slow down the rate of progress for middle and low attainers. An enforced segregation with diminished opportunity. It is an untransparent segregation that disproportionately disadvantages DC with average and low ability and those with SEN. Sets disadvantage those DC because they don’t have access to the same curriculum, the same expectations and same exam papers and for this reason are sealed out of good outcomes. Outcomes for DC in low sets in schools with average progress 8 are zero % GCSEs Eng lish and Maths at grade 4. Outcomes for DC in middle sets in schools with average progress 8 are also poor – about 50% get good GCSEs. So being in low streams means being structurally locked out of good GCSEs, which are the benchmark qualification expected after 12 years of school. This disadvantage is disproportionate, because unlike the difference between grade 9 and 7, the difference for those in lower sets is that due to curriculum and structural barriers they miss out completely on Level 2 qualifications at KS4 that are required for jobs, FE, HE. The law and financing provides for them to have Level 2 qualifications which they structurally miss, education does not work for them at all.

This is not satisfactory because this country believes in equal opportunity, while sets enforce ceilings to opportunities in an untransparent way. In the public discourse we agree that selection at the age of 11 is wrong, that children develop at different rate and should have the flexibility to flourish in their own time. Sets take away this flexibility in practice. Importantly, children who are ‘working towards’ in Primary school miss narrowly SATs and end up in bottom sets in secondary, where they are precluded from the higher paper curriculum and statistically are not likely to have GCSE at grade 4 (1 in 10). That means that at the age of 11 the chances of these children are sealed by segregated set curriculum, they are selected to fail, even though in public discourse we deny that there is selection at 11.

Children who are ‘working towards’ since Reception in Primary school are what I called ‘already in secondary modern’ in the old sense that they are unlikely to be exposed to the curriculum for good GCSEs due to structure of education. In my experience with my DD, intervention in infant school is provided to bring the child to ‘working towards’ level, and then withdrawn/limited due to resources, intervention stops short of ‘working at’. This is also the experience of many parents of children with SEN. ‘Working towards’ is used as justification to deny additional SEN resources and intervention, as evidence that the child is making sufficient progress. Yet, this rate of progress is on a pathway to miss GCSEs. ‘Working towards’ leads to failing SATs and the bottom set. Children are forced under a ceiling of failure. This means, due to such rationing of intervention, and organisation of sets, DC are locked out of equal opportunity for KS4 qualifications from junior school, for reason of their disability. This is not what is in law and portrayed in public discourse. Parents are unaware that their DC are stripped from equal opportunity.
They hope that assessments and EHCPs will sort things out and DC will have their chance, but that’s not the case due to barriers of sets. To catch up for times without provision, DS with SEN needs accelerated progress and flexibility to move between sets. Accelerated progress depends on provisions, which usually are provided for average progress. Accelerated progress is unlikely in schools with average or below average progress 8, flexibility between sets is all but impossible after year 8. So a child with serious SEN and good ability could in fact be locked into slow progress since reception.

Teen, qualifications, yours and mine, or whoever's have no relevance what's so ever.

You failed to engage completely with the central argument that sets limit the outcome for too many DC with average ability, regardless whether it is OK for your own children.

In my (selective) school we had sets for maths from y9. Top set had the number of seats in the biggest classroom in the school. Bottom set had 15 students - so much more teacher input per pupil.

Top set teaching was basically go through example on board once, have a go at exercise set, ask if problems. Very few problems that I remember. Most teaching was reminders to set out working properly and that 2 +2 did not equal 5 or 3 - i.e. check your work for arithmetical errors...

School had a good set of maths teachers, bottom sets were shared over the years as I would imagine a lot more planning was required to teach bottom set than top! Head of department probably taught more bottom sets.

How is that abandoning the bottom set?

cakes

So basically you are a random off the internet with no specialist knowledge or relevant experience, and no coherent argument?

Versus Noble and Maisy both of whom are teachers who have shown time and time again are experienced teachers of many years standing, who have patiently explained why some of your arguments are completely unfounded?

And actually, I didn't fail to engage with the argument! Upthread I explained why your claims didn't chime with my own experience. Other more knowledgeable posters have found the holes in your argument. In particular, GCSE grades are set so that 35% don't pass. You could give every pupil 1-1 teaching from age 5, but under the current system, 35% would still not get GCSE level 4.

Sets really don't limit average ability achievement. Otherwise pupils would all pass at college whereas this figure is a woeful 22%.

Sets do however enable pupils to be taught at a level appropriate for their ability. I repeat there is no point delivering a lesson on the sine rule to a student who cannot grasp calculating missing angles in a triangle.

Teachers work their arses off to enable students to achieve a grade 4. With norm referencing there will always be approx 35% who don't get the grade 4. That's how statistics work.

Cakes you clearly have no experience of teaching Maths in a secondary school, otherwise you would not be arguing your ridiculous point.

Random, we deliberately put our strongest staff with bottom sets. They deserve the best deal and they get it.

I have experience in teaching both setted and non-setted classes, as for much of my time in secondary I taught ICT/Computing as well as Maths, sometimes to the same kids in the same year group. I know the subjects are different but it gave me a number of useful insights.
In ICT groups were based on other GCSE choices. Typically, year on year, I would have a "good" ICT group and a "less good" group. The good group had more students studying triple sciences and MFL. The less good group had more students studying PE and Tech. Otherwise there was a lot of crossover. However the less good group had on average lower predicted grades and tended to have more youngsters with behavioural issues. I taught the good group by pitching lessons towards the top end of the ability range and having the more able take on more and more technically demanding modules. Less able students benefited from the high expectations, but took fewer modules, giving them more time to focus on improvement. The other group I taught by in effect setting within the group, so there was a small number of students who did the same as the more able in the other group - but on the whole I pitched lessons nearer to the middle of the ability range.

My results were consistently among the best in the school for exceeding targets. However I could not have taught Maths GCSE in the same way, even to the better group. My ICT students included, in both groups, students from every Maths set on that side of the school. Less able learners would have struggled.

The most able may be "on top" of any system cakes but what they on top of can vary. With no setting they may still be top of the class but their opportunity to be learn subjects in depth and at more advanced level will be compromised. Why you seem to think that either desirable or acceptible I really dont know but go ahead and bang your drum.

In fact cakes a lot of the time the more able aren't stretched as far as they can be. Plenty of good and outstanding schools have targets to improve the results of the more able.

So basically you are a random off the internet with no specialist knowledge or relevant experience, and no coherent argument?

This

So basically you are a random off the internet with no specialist knowledge or relevant experience, and no coherent argument?

This x 2

Surgeons who fail all of the difficult patients and half of the mid-difficult patients and only do well for the easy patients would not be allowed to practice. Not on the difficult patients at least. That is the point really

Cakes I don't think you understand this either. I believe that many surgeons refuse to do the difficult (riskier) surgeries because by definition they are less likely to be successful/more likely to result in a patient's death. This will skew the surgeons results - a higher than average death rate would flag up the surgeon to the authorities. As a result patients with complicated cases struggle to find a surgeon to take on their care. (The law of unintended consequences). So a lot of surgeons probably ARE just doing well on the easy patients and avoiding the trickier ones, who could blame them? And I have no idea how this is relevant to setting for Maths at secondary school

I salute the patience shown by the rest of you, I'd have given up pages ago.

Cakes - your points are interesting - i’m Just trying to clarify a few things. What do you think is the mechanism for lower sets making less progress:

1. innate ability of child
2. loss of confidence of child
3. low expectations of teacher for student
4. being in a class with more disruptive pupils.
5. low parental expectations
6. difficult home life
7. allocated less experienced teachers

Is just exposure to the full curriculum going to improve their attainment? Would you acknowledge that trigonometry should only be taught after basic arithmetic is mastered? Are you saying that everyone should do only basic arithmetic until 90% or 100% of the class can do it?

If you slow down the top, how do you propose the country increases the number of maths and physics graduates (already a shortage)? The jump from gcse maths to a level is already very large - some who attain a B would probably struggle - so less As would impact the number of people carrying on.

Teen,

Your last post is basically admission that you have no answer, no argument to put forward. You have nothing but labels and other peoples supposed titles to hide behind.
My argument is far from incoherent, this is why you call it names, have no answer and don't engage with it.

Your experience as you described it does no favours to the sets system, as I discussed up thread.
If your DC is so extreme that they require 4 or 2 hours for every 20 min that other children need, your DC is outside of the range of ability that can be educated without sets, in mixed cohort. An outlier cannot justify sets for everyone.
If your DC has average ability, than with the right provisions he would not require 2 hours for 20 min and should be able to do good GCSEs. In that case he should not sit in the bottom set. Your experience just doesn't add up, probably because your example of 2 hours is a construct for the sake of argument. The reality of your DC experience is more complex and nuanced. You advocate sets because this is what you know, what is available, or what you choose for your DC. It does not make it right for everyone.

I discussed the point about 35% early in the thread in page1 and 2. You did not engage with it.

Yes, norm reference is part of the problem and of course it needs to be looked at and revised as part of broader change. The basic fact is those 35% can't answer enough of exam questions. They don't score enough marks, because they were not educated to the required standard. Setting contributes to such low standards in the lower sets, poor outcomes, this is why it should be scrapped.

Have they been educated to the required standard, there would be huge pressure to adjust norm referencing, so that 90% would get grade 4 and above and not 65%. But first, those kids need to master the basic stuff for grade 4.

I say 90%, because just as an example, 90% of the French (and probably 98% of Finns) pass the equivalent of GCSEs, and Brits are not supposed to be less able... Do you follow?
You cannot explain these poor outcomes away with low ability because in other systems students with similar ability, from 10 to 35 percentile achieve better equivalent outcomes. So children with this range of ability are capable of better, it is the system that prevents them from achieving.

The point is only bottom 10% of population really have low ability.

Average ability starts at 25%tile, so 35 takeaway 25 = 10% of kids have average ability and don't get grade 4 and above. This is wrong.

Selective schools I suppose take only highly able students and teach the full curriculum. In the grammar I know there were no sets until year 10, all sets had full curriculum and sat the higher paper. So that is not abandonment.

bangs head against cakes shaped brick wall

I'm desperate to engage but can't help feeling like a broken record. Cakes you clearly have NO idea what secondary schools are like and even less understanding of norm referencing.

20 mins vs 2-4 hours really isn't that unusual and would not be considered an outlier.

Actually no, in the selective private school my son used to attend there were certain topics that only top set were taught. Up until the new 9-1 GCSe the other sets were all taught the same content but since the introduction of the new, harder exams they have the lowest set doing Foundation.

Of course selective schools are abandoning lower ability students. Jeez cakes you really are ridiculous.

At least I am happy to admit what experience I have / don't have. I don't feel the need to cover points that others have more detailed knowledge on than I have.

My DDs are not outliers, but they appear to need more repetition than the average. (The 20min-4hr was the range from fast to slow not average to slow).

Selective schools don't need to set in anywhere near the same way that a fully comp might need to for maths, selective schools are full of 'top set' kids anyway.

I can see the argument for mixed ability teaching in many subjects.
I can see the argument for not setting in primary.
I do not think you have in any way shown that mixed ability in maths at secondary is better. I have been more convinced by maths teachers views and my own experience.
If you were a maths teacher who had taught mixed ability at secondary and could explain how it would work in practice I would perhaps be more swayed by your assertions.

Anyway, I give up now.

I'm not going to spend more time discussing with someone who won't state their background on the topic. I have no idea whether you have any experience of schools apart from presumably having attended one once.

Enjoy bonfire night.

My extremely limited experience, (dropped out of a Maths PGCE) is that children who can't read very well by lower juniors are handicapped. It's only anecdotal, but some children, if they had the questions explained verbally, had no problems, but deciphering the questions could put them off before they got to the maths bit.

What do others think?

The most able may be "on top" of any system cakes but what they on top of can vary.
They can be on top of the exact same standard. There is no need to dilute the curriculum. The whole idea is all but very few low ability students would go through the same curriculum and sit the same exams and more would pass it, but only the best few will get top marks.

Why, cakes do you think that lower sets go at a slower pace?