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.

so equal percentage of Brits and of the French should be able to attain equivalent level of knowledge / qualifications

What evidence do you have that they don't?

You cannot compare norm referenced and non norm referenced qualifications.

So the fact that x percent of French students reach the standard that THEY call a pass and y % of British students reach the standard called 'Level 4' are two separate, and entirely incomparable, pieces of data - before we even being to introduce further differences in e.g. staying down a year etc.

If you can show me that, given EXACTLY THE SAME TEST PAPER, after being taught EXACTLY THE SAME CURRICULUM, sat by CHILDREN AT EXACTLY THE SAME AGE French students achieve better, then that is worth talking about.

Until then, you are comparing apples with pears and pretending that you are comparing apples with apples.

(Pisa, btw, can't count - the variability in cohorts entered, pupils excluded from the test - many countries exclude very high percentages for 'special needs', other countries include almost all children in their results - different curricula followed vs text paper style etc make it a useless comparator for this purpose)

Ups, Cakes did it! She is the source of all problems with education. Problem solved.
Except nobody said that.

cantkeepawayforever
Very well put.

But as we back to playing the victim and yet more claims that nobody is engaging with the issues I can't honestly see there being much point.

Nuanced understanding of a complex issue never tends to be the forte of non specialists on discussion boards.

(The stupid thing is, as I've said all along, I can see positives and negatives of setting and mixed ability depending on context. Even as someone who thinks there can be issues with setting, Cakes makes very little sense. It's hardly the sign of a coherent argument when you've got people who may sympathise with some parts of your stance saying your argument makes no sense.)

Maisy,

Ditto.

I have said earlier in the thread that i am not absolutely sure that fine-grained Maths sets from day 1 of Year 7 are necessary or desirable, especially since the vast majority of pupils will have been taught in mixed ability groupings in primary. But that qualified measure of support for non-setting has been completely eroded by cake's inability to engage with any of the nuances of the argument - or even any of the facts.

If processing speed is so important, why nobody measures it?

Except they do. See the attached from JCQ about access arrangements. Low processing speeds can be used as evidence for a need for extra time in exams.

CAT tests are actually used to set, along with SATs.

Some schools do, some don’t. CATs are timed so processing speed will come into it.

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.

I know very little about the French or Finnish methods of teaching maths, I’ve explained how they do it in Shanghai, they give the weaker kids who haven’t got a topic an additional lesson that the higher ability students don’t get. In England we cannot timetable double the amount of maths for weaker kids who need more time to grasp a concept, so they have to go slower instead.

they give the weaker kids who haven’t got a topic an additional lesson that the higher ability students don’t get.

AND all children, of pretty much every ability, will have many hours of after-school coaching /cramming [so their results are as much to do with their out of school learning as the education system]

AND the schools teach a very, very narrow curriculum. Do you think it would be acceptable for your child to only have lessons in Maths, English and Science every day of their school lives?

Cakes - quite a few of the Asians have sets: Singapore, Hong Kong has selective secondary school entry, I think South Korea has streaming. I believe Shanghai does not have sets.

Also - People say children are hothoused for 11+ or test for setting but not for GCSEs. No one asks people how much tutoring people had for GCSEs. Does it matter how quickly someone learnt it? A lot of basic maths is practice, grit and perseverance.

Namenic,

The Shanghai school system is very highly socially selective due to local laws about who can attend school in the city - so, like selective schools and private schools in this country, setting is less critical because those who might form the 'lower sets' are simply not in the school.

One article about Shanghai and PISA from a reasonably reputable source

I’m finding your comments quite offensive now.

Speed of information processing and working memory are two of the basic tests on an Ed Psych report. Scores below a certain centipede trigger things like extra time in exams.

How do you think I know my two kids processing speeds? From their Ed Psych reports. In fact it’s IQ that often isn’t reported.

Or do you think that having an SpLd must mean a child is “thick”.

cantkeepawayforever
I never thought saying:
Issues with outcomes of norm referenced qualifications are not the fault of sets.
There are pros and cons of sets
There are pros and cons of mixed ability
A system could improve, as all systems can
Schools make decisions on how to group based on lots of variables
Lots of variables influence pupil outcomes
Comparing totally different systems by cherry picking and ignoring variables doesn't make sense
Blanket assertions that sets cause x y z are nonsense

would be cause such a stir.

Oops auto correct. Should read centile.

Alexander, I liked 'centipede'!

Finding out that ds had a low processing speed was instrumental in him gaining the help he needed to achieve. Both at school and in everyday life.

🐛

Maisy,

i was a little surprised that a pragmatic part-time seating of particular children in a particular lesson around a table together so that they can access the support they need was seen as 'rigid setting that denied those children access to the same teaching as others'... despite the fact that it is designed wholly so that those children are helped to access and implement the whole class teaching....

I am considering stating tomorrow that no children can sit together with any adult, equipment or other support because simply sitting together is causing them to be unable to hear the main teaching and thus there WILL BE AN UNBRIDGEABLE GAP in their learning.

More to the point, I will of course not spend my lunchtime working with children to close any gaps that exist. Nor assembly time...nor an evening of planning...

Yes, Maisy, everything is :)

I remember some passionate passages from you about helping to improve attainment for the disadvantaged. But of course, channeling aggression toward the whoever challenges the wisdom and smug consensus (by refusing to acknowledge the problem and repeating the carma that it's children's fault ) puts the moose off the table, so we can relax and feel :)

Children of average and lower ability don't have to go slower. Segregation in sets makes them go slower. It is the choice to make them pay the price for the system, that was designed in 1870 to serve the very few in top range of ability.

Thank god you don’t teach my children.

Cakes,

Have you read the information?

Please could you respond in detail to the arguments being put forward, rather than just attacking those who are - in an informed way, and from a position of being in schools every day, and understanding about e.g. norm referencing, Shanghai maths, processing speeds etc - challenging some of your statements?

We have resorted to poking fun because your failure to engage with any facts is, frankly, not really worthy of any rational argument any more.

The point about about processing speed is tedious really. It is a niche factor amongst various cognitive and SEN factors, but of course you can find it in the list amongst many other factors.

I’m disengaging now. Cakes is talking absolute bollocks. Thank goodness that they won’t be let anywhere near any of my children and thank goodness for teachers that teach the child they see in front of them at a pace they can follow rather than following some mis informed poppycock.

Cakes,

If you were taught Physics with, say, Stephen Hawking, would it be appropriate or sensible to teach you both exactly the same material at exactly the same pace?

Whether you were in the same room or not, he would learn faster.

Differences in ability exist. People learn at different speeds. This is not caused by setting, it is caused by, amongst other things, genetic variability.

Setting is one way of managing this difference. You may argue that fine-grained setting from 11 is not necessary - and I would agree with you. But to state that differences in pace of learning are wholly CAUSED by setting, rather than by differences in fundamental capability, is wrong.

Cakes,

What do you mean by 'tedious'?

You have said that differences in pace of learning are wholly caused by setting.

Others have pointed out that speed of cognitive processing affects pace of learning, and this is not caused by setting.

You dismiss it as 'a niche factor' because it undermines your thesis, which is that all differences in pace of learning are caused by setting...