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.

Oh dear what a woeful misunderstanding of what it’s like to sit a maths exam

Giving everyone the same curriculum would more than likely lead to less people passing, not more.

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)
How can teachers ensure 90% of students hit a norm referenced standard defined by less than 90% achieving it?

Please tell me you aren't seriously suggesting that mixed ability teaching would enable 90% of pupils to reach a norm referenced outcome?

I said 90% of students should reach the standard [of education] required [at Level 2 etc. in terms of content]

Obviously you need to scrap the norm reference, redefine and recalibrate all parameters. Like any parameter, it is a choice that can be chosen to vary or to be scraped all together. I thought you could take some degree of pragmatics, imagination. Just imagine that 90% of students actually cal solve quadratic equations... I don'tr know, like the Finns, the French....

Alexander, you are pretending, right?

You just can't imagine anything changing. Everything is fixed and rigid. There are no moving parts possible, down to every tedious detail, you hold on tight to the whole and every part.

What about a different configuration, where DC actually learned the stuff, so they don't need the watered down foundation paper? Imagine it is possible to prepare a paper that everybody can sit and 90% can pass, because they actually can do it (they learned to the standard required I mean)?

To avoid the widening disparities why not have a basic qualification that is pass/fail for basic numeracy (not norm based and can even be computer generated - so little chance of grade inflation)? Kids should take it when they are ready but it should be a pre-requisite to gcse. Also - why can’t people who struggle take the foundation paper first then go on to take the higher paper (after all kids have to be in training now until 18). Everyone would then be exposed to the same curriculum.

I said 90% of students should reach the standard [of education] required [at Level 2 etc. in terms of content]

Obviously you need to scrap the norm reference, redefine and recalibrate all parameters

If the norm reference is scrapped, and replaced with one which 90% of students reach, then that can be done - given the political will - tomorrow. It does not require any changes to setting arrangements, and would mean that children would perform EXACTLY as they currently do but be awarded better grades...

You speak as if the current pass rates are a function of teaching and setting. They are not. They are a function of norm referencing. Changing norm referencing, alone, would create the 90% pass rate that you seek....

Obviously you need to scrap the norm reference, redefine and recalibrate all parameters. Like any parameter, it is a choice that can be chosen to vary or to be scraped all together. I thought you could take some degree of pragmatics, imagination
Hang on. You said there had to be
grade 4 and above in Maths GCSE (I mean reaching the standard required, not diluting or reframing)
But now you say we can scrap norm referencing, redefine and recalibrate?
So I when you say I need pragmatics and imagination, what you actually mean is 'work out what cake logic is being applied, then reply something saying cakes is right'.

cantkeepawayforever
I agree. But then again many of us have said this sort of thing.

Maisy,

I am just disbelieving that someone who has such a passionately-held view on such a niche subject is so incredibly uninformed about it, and so can't help hoping that at some point she / he will take some information on board.

grade 4 and above in Maths GCSE (I mean reaching the standard required, not diluting or reframing)

Cakes. There is no such thing as 'the absolute standard of Level 4 and above in maths GCSE', purely because of norm referencing. There is 'the mark required to get a 4 in that exam in that particular year taken by that particular cohort', but that does not represent either a particular body or a particular absolute standard - it represents a mark obtained by a certain percentage of the cohort taking that particular exam.

If we choose to set the 'absolute standard' at a level which 90% of current pupils can achieve, then I can absolutely guarantee that in a few years' time that will be 91%, 92%, 93% ... because teachers do strive to get better at getting their pupils through a particular qualification. Then there will be an argument about 'dumbing down', so the standard will be artificially raised again to create a new norm reference at 90%....

maisy cant

I think it isn't unreasonable to say there could be a way to get more students being able to do the topics that are currently labelled as GCSE 1-5.

More funding, more hours allocated to maths, a change in teaching style, more incentives for children etc could all make a difference.

It might even be that teaching mixed ability rather than in sets might improve it if teachers were trained in how to do the mixed ability, and also had smaller classes, and also had fewer classes.

What I don't think has been proved or even a convincing argument put up yet, is for the mixed ability for maths within the current English education system and funding.

cantkeepawayforever
I agree. It's hard work trying to repeatedly point out the same basic facts.

TeenTimesTwo
I agree.
A combination of changing assessment methods, reflecting on curriculum, different research into learning, more staff, smaller class sizes could all make a difference as you say, but not within the current set up.

I was more confused at being told by cakes that I needed to explain how to get 90% of students over a norm referenced threshold that's set at not 90% without doing any reframing or reworking.
Then when I point out that can't be done under the current set up, Cakes replies I should use some imagination, pragmatics and talk about redefining and recalibrating all parameters.

Madness.

You are contradicting yourself

You want 90% of students to get maths GCSE Grade 4 or above.

That is most easily achieved using the “watered down” foundation paper than it would be forcing children to sit through higher level content delivered at too fast a pace so they don’t grasp the basics & shattering their confidence in the process.

THe long and short of it is that schools are judged not only on the percentage of children that gain a pass or a good pass at GCSE but also on the level of progress made so it is in their best interest to get their pupils to achieve the highest grade possible.

They are not going to use sets if they don’t actually work.

cakes you haven’t answered. Why do you think the lower sets go at a slower pace?

Why do you think the lower sets go at a slower pace?

Because of confidence crash, because gaps were allowed to open and not bridged, because basics were not properly retained before moving onto to the next topic. Because they were segregated into lower expectations where they are in a twilight of 'working towards', but interventions stop short of 'working at', so they can't regain their solid footing, feel shaky, incapable, unworthy, abandoned, and they react to it. In short, because of sets and because the system believes they are not worthy.

I know, you want to say it is because they are thick. No, they are not. I am talking about those with average ability and children with average ability should be, and are able to get good outcomes in other countries. In France children with average ability pass BAC, 90% in a school year, 80% in each year of birth.
Ability is distributed equally in all countries, Brits are not more stupid, so they too should be able to pass Bac with the correct organisation of education. You need to remove barriers for 90% of brits to pass the level of knowledge equivalent to Bac. I keep repeating this because it is really important to anshor the discussion to some factual reality, as opposed to opinion elevated to religeous dogma that 35% of population are too thick and anworthy. This dogma comes from 1870, it's time to forget it. If the French can design a system where 90% of school year can do enough maths to pass Bac, than Brits should be able too to learn those maths, and the system need to be made to move and fit around this goal.

Other countries qualifications and outcomes are scrutinised by experts under Bologna process and are recognised as equivalent in content and outcomes. Basically the Bac I am talking about is equivalent to A-level grade C. This means the 10%-tile Finns and French who pass those qualifications actually achieve an absolute level of knowledge equivalent to grade 4 here. Actually the French achieved 8 out of 20 to pass. They didn't pass because of lower norm reference, they don't have norm references, they actually answered questions 35% of Brits can't answer. I repeat that because it is an important anchor of reality. Average kids in all countries can achieve better. In this country they don't achieve not because they are stupid, but because the system is deliberately designed to abandon them. Yes, you need significant change of the system, but you need to teach them actually to solve those equations. It is a matter of how to organise tuition to improve the absolute standard attained.

It is most certainly not a matter of moving the norm reference to fit the same current low outcome. It is a matter to teach differently and better, to improve the outcome for at least 90% of population. I don't know why everybody pretend to not understand this. Totally invested in the sacred immobility of the system?

They are not going to use sets if they don’t actually work.
35% fail, so sets actually don't work for the children concerned. You need to stay in contact with facts. There is no need for opinion and speculations. In those bottom 35%, 10% have low ability, 15% are low average and 10% are average in ability. So if those average kids fail, sets don't work for them, ok?

because gaps were allowed to open and not bridged, because basics were not properly retained

Given that primary schools don’t tend to set, at least early on, how do you explain the gaps and lack of retention?

Do you agree with the statement “some children are better at retaining information than others”?

35% fail
because that is how the exams are designed.

You cannot compare performance within norm-referenced and non-norm referenced systems - the absolute standard of any or all of the 35% the exam is designed to give lower than a 4 to may be higher, lower or the same as the absolute standard of those 'passing' in other countries.

Maybe we should all get out of the mindset of kids at the bottom being ‘thick’ (I know Cakes u’re probably quite flustered as lots of ppl disagreeing with u) or worth less. Just because they aren’t good at maths doesn’t mean they can’t succeed in life or even in maths! But because the gap is already so huge by Y7 it becomes impossible to teach everyone together with the current level of resourcing (Even cakes made the comment about some selective schools Being ok with not setting because all the kids are of similar ability).

I disagree with cakes in general but there is a valid point in there and there is some new ‘mastery’ approach - supposedly taken from Singapore (but it is confusing as they definitely do setting and streaming there). Some people have interpreted this as the whole class not moving on until everyone gets the concept - i think what is supposed to happen is there are 3 different level of ‘hardness’ around 1 concept and the kids do up to the level they are able. There is a discussion in the gifted and talented thread.
Also see places like michaela school where they encourage rote learning for the core knowledge base (along with draconian discipline) - would probably work with basic arithmetic...

Why are we so obsessed with kids taking GCSEs at 16? 2 or 4 years later is nothing in the whole scheme of things. Take functional skills maths and then ‘watered down’ foundation paper and then GCSE. If they don’t manage it at 18 then there are lots of further education colleges that do night school. I’m sure someone could make a Free MOOC (online learning) for gcse too! I think kids probably need some role model adults who took GCSEs or qualifications late and made a success of their lives.

The bottom set aren't thick!

Mayve the junior schools wrote them off
Maybe they didn't get much intereaction with their parents because they don't have maths language skills or even thought to help them achieve
Maybe they aren't as mature as the other kids
Maybe they have medical conditions they prevent them from attending schools
Maybe they go home to care for a parent or get beaten for failing at some slight issue?

You can't just decide people are thick because of one exam result

No one apart from cakes has said bottom sets are thick.

But it is certainly true that students in lower sets tend to have slower processing speeds and lower retention levels than those in top sets. It’s not always true, but it does change how they need to be taught.

Ignoring that is like saying everyone has to run races in the same time.

My son certainly isn't thick (and is actually in top set maths now). But he has a speed of information processing speed of on the 24th percentils as opposed to my daughter who is on the 88th percentile and his working memory is 52nd percentile whereas hers is 82nd percentile.

He lost his confidence in maths when he was at his previous school and he was in a set that worked at too fast a pace for him. Luckily a change of school meant that confidence loss was not permanent.

mcsbrent.co.uk/mathagogy-is-this-the-best-we-can-do-part-7-the-spacing-effect/

Really interesting innovative techniques there for pupils who find maths hard. But trying the same work for kids who already have a solid understanding would not be a good use of time.

I think setting maths at secondary is necessary.
But i do think something goes wrong at primary level whether that is
Starting too young
Having 12m age gap combined with the above.
Not making children pass that year to continue

If 1/3 people dont pass gcse maths then 1/3 children have a parent that didnt pass. And is it more likely certain ones have 2 parents who havent passed. In comparison to various combinations of parents who both have alevel, degree in science/maths or are teachers.

Certainly it seems parents put the bulk of the 1-2-1 time in for reading. Having 'engaged' parents who can help with maths probably makes a huge difference.
The summer born statistics do show that children who are behind at the start will find it hard to work their way up and are never truly equal even by gcse or alevel.
There truly is a huge difference between children in how quickly they pick things up. Some kids could do phonics check before school others by end of yr r and other may never pass probably.
As others have said a combination between retention and processing speed.
Diet (less veg/fish etc) could actually mean some countries kids are 'brighter'. But also in a situation where 80% passed to a level then that is that many more confident parents even grandparents to help with homework.
Also factors like behaviour and inclusion of sen will be different in different countries.
I agree a different functional test (think this may already exist) so those who cant pass can show they can do the basics.

I really disagree with calling primary sets ability groups. As already said summer borns are at a huge disadvantage and i reject that they should be thought of as lower ability. Plus the children who are hothoused. Doesnt mean they will be the most accurate.

Possibly an improvement will be seen with more fluidity SB children starting. Especially as more prem/struggling toddlers' parents are likely to delay.

I completely see the issue that some kids just get a bit behind and then cant catch up.
Personally imo things like the secrecy of book bands and primary setting makes all this hidden so parents cant see that their dc needs more help. I think luckily reading can catch up. My own dc (who is extremely bright, above average iq) managed not to meet yr 1 maths expectations! the teacher couldnt see that dd was im sure getting bored with the Q or answering wrong on purpose (she does this often at home and with technology will enjoy pressing the wrong answers, sigh). But that teachers opinion has now carried on to yr 2 and i dont know whether they set or not ...
Policies of no homework mean you may not even see how the dc is doing until parents evenings.

I also completely disagree with sats being used for gcse targets (like 5 years away). Again disadvantages the youngest also i dont think you can say from that age how they will cope with the much harder work (though the sats do seem pretty hard so that may make it more accurate).

Ups, Cakes did it! She is the source of all problems with education. Problem solved.

The word "thick" is so unpalatable, it puts the moose on the table. Let's switch to some obscure euphemism. We don't think they are stupid, we think they have low processing speed.

If processing speed is so important, why nobody measures it? Even
in cognitive assessments for children with SEN, low processing speed is rarely measured. The assessments done by EPs always involve some sort of IQ measure like Wechsler WISC, but it does not even have a part for processing speed as such.

CAT tests are actually used to set, along with SATs. CAT tests don't measure processing speed either because it is beside the point, but is conveniently obscure so helpful to dodge the argument.

Noble, the French and the Finns, the Asians, and the whole world also have a range of abilities. Yet, they educate bigger proportion of their population to better outcomes without sets. Do you agree with the statement:
"No bigger fraction of Brits have low ability, than the fraction of the French (etc) who have low ability, so equal percentage of Brits and of the French should be able to attain equivalent level of knowledge / qualifications"

Why don't you engage with this argument?