Another maths setting question...

[doctoroctopus]

I’m going to speak to school tomorrow but could anyone look at these figures?

DS started Y7. His SATS were 104 for maths and 111 for both English reading and SPaG (scaled scores).

His CATS are 86 quantitative and 99 for verbal. I understand the quantitative figure is below average. I think the issue for him is timing and being overwhelmed by starting secondary and I think he has rushed through the tests as he thinks finishing quickly is good!

He has been placed in Set 4 of 4. Does this look low? I would have expected the lower end of set 2 or set 3.

My DD has SEN and despite being clever she us not academically.

She's been placed in the lower sets at her new Secondary school and I'm very pleased she has. She's in small group with what appear to be good teachers getting work of the appropriate level. She's getting lots of teacher attention and doing really well. In a bigger group doing more challenging work she would flounder (and mask her lack of understanding perfectly).

There is absolutely nothing wrong with being in a lower set.

DD got 110 and is in set 2 at her comp. so far sets are based entirely on sats scores. This seems the right group for her. In a friends school 110 would be top set

OP. What is the problem?

Is it that you don't like the idea of him being in a bottom set?

Or is it that he is saying the work is too easy for him, and he is easily the top of the class, and not being stretched?

Or is it that you are concerned that if he is 'only bottom set material' he will be heading to fail his GCSE'?

I think you need to be clear to yourself what the issue is, as then you'll know what if anything to say to / ask the school.

My DD got 109 for maths, 115 for reading and 120 for spag, exceeding for writing, she's been placed in the accelerated set though I think based more on her English scores than maths. Her target grade is lowest for maths compared to English and science, and lower than some of her peers. I wouldn't be happy with her being in bottom set for maths, though a middling set might be more appropriate at this stage. However I think our secondary do take the SAT score relatively seriously as it's what their progress 8 score is based on, not sure if it would make sense to put a high achieving SATs scorer in bottom sets, not making progress from their original KS2 scores.

Schools want all children to make progress in maths.
But for some children a slower paced set is what helps them make progress rather than preventing it.
And for some, a slower paced set in y7 might set them up for better things in y8.

not sure if it would make sense to put a high achieving SATs scorer in bottom sets, not making progress from their original KS2 scores.

If their SATS score has been inflated (for whatever reason) then putting a student in a higher set which they cannot access the work is a ridiculous idea and will slow their progress.

It makes sense to put a child in the set where the child will do best. Regardless of what SATS scores, CATS scores etc. they might have achieved. The fact that the school only put the students into sets after a few weeks suggests that they've used this time to work out where individual students will work best. I'd much rather a school that does this, than one that blindly says "average SATS results - better put them in middle set".

I had the opposite issue with DD. She did unexpectedly badly in maths SATs, so if school had just looked at her SATS result they would have put her in a below middle set. Luckily for her, the school did what I've assumed OP's school does - they actually looked at her ability and how well she worked and put her in Set 2 (of 8). I don't know the other students' results, but I imagine her SATS result was quite probably the lowest in the set. This was proven to be the correct place when she did extremely well in her end of year exams and was subsequently moved up to Set 1.

Point of story - trust the school (unless they actually give you reason not to). Better a school that looks at the actual child than one that just looks at the stats.

A score of 86 is low. Looking at percentages, 85 is 14%, so only 14% of children across all abilities will score lower.

It doesn't really match with his SATS score. Even if he was really well prepared, he did amazingly well to get 105.

You could have a quiet chat with him about the CAT testing. I know when dd1 did it, she'd never come across those sort of tests before and didn't realise it was a test. So she got stuck on one quite early, where she kept going back to it, so didn't complete the questions.
With dd2, dd1 told her to just miss out any she couldn't do and come back to them later if she could, and she got a better (by a few points) score, although generally they do very similarly in tests.

The bottom set is often smaller and with more support, so he may do better in that anyway.

My daughters both got level 5 at KS2 (I'm not sure how the new numbers compare). At secondary (selective), one was put in set 2 of 5. The other was put in the bottom set. Both were in the right place. The one in the bottom set needed longer than before she understood, and the slower pace helped her to consolidate what she knew before moving on. She would never have kept up in a higher set.

CATS are a measurement of 'potential', an effort to predict what a child could achieve. SATS are a measurement of what they actually have achieved, so of course this can vary with the quality of teaching, level of input and effort from the pupil etc. Our prep has 4 sets for maths, and CATS are always carefully considered, alongside SATS progress tests and their relevant predictions. DD has always measured 141 on quantitative, NVR and spatial (all important predictors for mathematical logic) and 120 on SATS, and she is in the top set. She has a friend who scores quite low on CATS but high on SATS, and her mum is never happy that she is not in top sets. The child has a tutor every weekend, and the mum is quite pushy. The school seem to be able to see this, and tried to explain that while she performs well on assessments that she is well prepared for, she struggles when presented with something different, and her mental maths is weak. If the CATS are low, then this is usually a good indicator of what their underlying ability is, but is by no means a limit to what they can achieve. Our eldest daughter had lower CATS but good SATS, yet she had to really work at it, and anything beyond the text, went over her head. She just doesn't have the same natural maths ability that her sister has.
What were the NVR & Spatial scores? If they are also low, it might well be a fair reflection. Were you given the actual CATS report, or just the scores? Ask to see the actual report, they usually contain SAT predictions based on the child's CAT scores. If the SAT prediction is lower than what he has actually achieved, then they might have felt he would fare better in a set with more support. Lower sets are not always a bad thing. If he's achieving well, then that's a positive sign.

In our school initial sets would be based on the primary data and then they are adjusted around about now taking into account CAT and internal assessment data that has been generated since the start of the year. We usually (not always) find CAT and our internal data more accurate that the scores coming from primary.

A quantitative of 86 would be bottom set for us most likely - perhaps the bottom of the set above that depending on the year group (if the year group were particularly poor).