[Maple]

(Original post by NuclearFusion)
This is one of the reasons that Denmark doesn't put people in sets until at least age 12, because the problem with sets at a young age is that if you get it wrong, you end up with bright people in lower sets, which then makes them not try as hard, making them underachieve, which carries through to college.

I agree with this. In year seven I was put in middle set because the results of my year six SAT's hadn't come through (apparently there was a mix up or something). It seemed like a minor decision at the time but one that later I wish didn't happen. Simply because it meant I would do foundation Science and English. I had a good English teacher who managed to persuade the head of English to let me and another student attempt higher tier. I'm glad she did otherwise I wouldn't have got my two A* in Lang and Lit. The head of science - who was also my teacher - wouldn't budge though and after she left midway through year 10 we only had a string of supply teacher's for the rest of the year. I gave up by then but near the middle of year 11 she came back and after she still refused, I complained to the head teacher and it was only when I got both my parents involved that the school decided to let me do the higher tier for my last two modules. I'm so glad A-levels don't have any different tiers.

[MikeySwansea]

I like the idea behind this, but it's not practical.

There are a few people in my college who took A-Levels at the age of 16 and didn't put the work in. Now at the age of 22-30 they're back to give it another go with loads of motivation. If they were to come out with an A*, how could you take it off of them because of what they done 4-12 years previously? Or would you leave these people have their A*?

You pointed out that some uni's want people who have achieved A's without resits, therefore the people who get the A* with multiple resits are at a disadvantage anyway so in reality, there is no need for what you are proposing.

[NuclearFusion]

(Original post by Maple)
I agree with this. In year seven I was put in middle set because the results of my year six SAT's hadn't come through (apparently there was a mix up or something). It seemed like a minor decision at the time but one that later I wish didn't happen. Simply because it meant I would do foundation Science and English. I had a good English teacher who managed to persuade the head of English to let me and another student attempt higher tier. I'm glad she did otherwise I wouldn't have got my two A* in Lang and Lit. The head of science - who was also my teacher - wouldn't budge though and after she left midway through year 10 we only had a string of supply teacher's for the rest of the year. I gave up by then but near the middle of year 11 she came back and after she still refused, I complained to the head teacher and it was only when I got both my parents involved that the school decided to let me do the higher tier for my last two modules. I'm so glad A-levels don't have any different tiers.

Perfect example of how putting people in sets at too young an age can be detrimental to academic achievement. To do science A-levels in our college, you need at least B at GCSE, so if you were doing the foundation paper, you wouldn't be able to do Science at A-level

[Tweaky]

Surely revising and re-taking is only improving your knowledge further?

[mrshinyshoes]

(Original post by lapis.chloerose)
Money shouldn't even come into this discussion it'll just tempt champagne socialists to get on a soap box...

Having achieved the grade without any re-sits is a stipulation of many universities and one I agree with.


A*'s should be for those who can grab their grade first time and do so with great ease.
Otherwise the A* is a mere indicator of students who can work and slog like donkeys, this seems to be what it is today and what it will continue to be. Isn't that why the top universities ask their candidates to do additional exams during interviews? UCL with Philosophy for example...

No, a student who is prepared to work hard to get an A* after a re-sit is in my eyes much better than a student who can simply float through getting top marks. How do the uni's know that they will cope when they eventually get pushed, oh and the stipulation of no resits is pretty uncommon tbh

[mrshinyshoes]

(Original post by Maple)
I agree with this. In year seven I was put in middle set because the results of my year six SAT's hadn't come through (apparently there was a mix up or something). It seemed like a minor decision at the time but one that later I wish didn't happen. Simply because it meant I would do foundation Science and English. I had a good English teacher who managed to persuade the head of English to let me and another student attempt higher tier. I'm glad she did otherwise I wouldn't have got my two A* in Lang and Lit. The head of science - who was also my teacher - wouldn't budge though and after she left midway through year 10 we only had a string of supply teacher's for the rest of the year. I gave up by then but near the middle of year 11 she came back and after she still refused, I complained to the head teacher and it was only when I got both my parents involved that the school decided to let me do the higher tier for my last two modules. I'm so glad A-levels don't have any different tiers.

I agree with setting, coming from someone who went from bottom set maths all the way to top set lol, it makes you try harder to try and be up there with the best of them, although obviously i'm never going to be a maths genius

[Moiraclaire]

(Original post by NuclearFusion)
Perfect example of how putting people in sets at too young an age can be detrimental to academic achievement. To do science A-levels in our college, you need at least B at GCSE, so if you were doing the foundation paper, you wouldn't be able to do Science at A-level

woah woah woah.....

You can be put in sets at a young age,
you just neede to be able to move out on a routinely basis !!!
I was in set 2-4 for everything in year 7, but as I got older, I actually started to do somework (as soon as there were exams that mattered basically :L ) Then I gradually moved up and got to set 1 for everything by year 10 - yipeeee

Being in mixed ability classes is horrible !!!!!! I really can't stress that enough, it's bad for the high achievers and good for the low ones.
Obviously there are some low achievers who are perfectly behaved, but the majority are not and are way to chatty, also they need help all the time which wastes the time of those who are willing to move ahead.
You have a very short time in education and in order to maximise the attainment of those who are willign to put the effort in - you need to be set !!!!

[NuclearFusion]

(Original post by Moiraclaire)
woah woah woah.....

You can be put in sets at a young age,
you just neede to be able to move out on a routinely basis !!!
I was in set 2-4 for everything in year 7, but as I got older, I actually started to do somework (as soon as there were exams that mattered basically :L ) Then I gradually moved up and got to set 1 for everything by year 10 - yipeeee

Being in mixed ability classes is horrible !!!!!! I really can't stress that enough, it's bad for the high achievers and good for the low ones.
Obviously there are some low achievers who are perfectly behaved, but the majority are not and are way to chatty, also they need help all the time which wastes the time of those who are willing to move ahead.
You have a very short time in education and in order to maximise the attainment of those who are willign to put the effort in - you need to be set !!!!

I agree with sets and agree that mixed ability ones are bad once you are older. But alot of people end up in the wrong sets, and often it is hard to change them around. So putting people in sets at a really young age can have knock on effects for when you are older, since if you put intelligent people in low sets, they can't be pushed to their full potential, which leads to underachievement, which carries though. Of course, by the time people are around 12 or so, you can tell people's abilities and can put people in sets accordingly. But if you put 7 year olds in sets, it is often very hard to tell, and so people are bound to be put in the wrong sets.

[Clare~Bear]

Luckily my middle and high school reviewed the sets at the end of each year and your set for the next year was determined by how well you did in your SATs (my middle school opted to do them every year!) Plus even though my high school was in quite a bit town, it was near the edge and the catchment was mainly people from nearby villages such as mine. BUT there was another high school less than a mile further into town and that's a rough place that's now an academy with all its gangsta kids from the rough parts of the north of the town, although it's not as bad as the other high school that's in the south of town that has people from even rougher estates.

I know someone who was in the top set for maths but one of the teachers they got naturally spoke arabic, he then learnt french, and THEN learnt english from a french person . . . he couldn't say half the words the class meeded to learn like parallelogram and he couldn't spell them either, only in arabic.

[lapis.chloerose]

Mixed ability classes?
I do not understand how they can ever be considered a good idea.
They make both teaching and learning difficult.

[gunner4lyf44]

(Original post by Clare~Bear)
I agree with the A* and that it helps top unis/competitive courses find the top candidates.

BUT should you only be able to get an A* if you don't retake any modules, unless maybe you had mitigating or extrenuating circumstances.

???? Just a thought . . . if you have to do loads of resits are you really at the top????

Hmm...the thing this at most you can only resit a module once (in most cases) as its the jan A2 unit so you will only get to resit in june. Perhaps if the whole A-level had to be at 90 percent for an A* then maybe. I just that loads of people who are more than capable of getting an A* can easily just cock up on the day and considering these people probably have uni offers of an A* its a bit unfair of depriving them to go to that uni.

[Maple]

(Original post by NuclearFusion)
Perfect example of how putting people in sets at too young an age can be detrimental to academic achievement. To do science A-levels in our college, you need at least B at GCSE, so if you were doing the foundation paper, you wouldn't be able to do Science at A-level

Same in my college aswell. I'm now doing Chemistry, Biology, Maths and English Lit at A2 and had I not gotten my parents involved in year 11 then applying to medicine wouldn't be possible for me.

[Maple]

(Original post by lapis.chloerose)
Mixed ability classes?
I do not understand how they can ever be considered a good idea.
They make both teaching and learning difficult.

They really are the worst kind of class to be in, I felt sorry for my teacher's. I'm going way offtopic but my class on several occasions made this supply teacher cry.

[Moiraclaire]

(Original post by NuclearFusion)
I agree with sets and agree that mixed ability ones are bad once you are older. But alot of people end up in the wrong sets, and often it is hard to change them around. So putting people in sets at a really young age can have knock on effects for when you are older, since if you put intelligent people in low sets, they can't be pushed to their full potential, which leads to underachievement, which carries though. Of course, by the time people are around 12 or so, you can tell people's abilities and can put people in sets accordingly. But if you put 7 year olds in sets, it is often very hard to tell, and so people are bound to be put in the wrong sets.

yes but if you are routinely changed sets ? like termly? then you get the best of both worlds and clever people realise being in bottom sets is horrible so work their way out :L

Apart from maths, as long as you do put the effort in when you're older, you can catch up - e.g. history is totally discrete - you only need to know the GCSE syllabus well, whereas maths is accumulative



When I was at primary school I was always in the bottom groups - I hated school. I couldn't read properly until year 3 and was pretty average at maths.
I always resented bering in bottom set - but I was young and didn't know how to work my way out.


I didn't exactly fail as a result :L

GCSEs - 8A*4As. Wheras some people who had always been blue group (the top set at primary school) did not make it to a-levels....

[lapis.chloerose]

(Original post by Moiraclaire)
yes but if you are routinely changed sets ? like termly? then you get the best of both worlds and clever people realise being in bottom sets is horrible so work their way out :L

Apart from maths, as long as you do put the effort in when you're older, you can catch up - e.g. history is totally discrete - you only need to know the GCSE syllabus well, whereas maths is accumulative


.

I wish I could have negged you more than once...
You would have the education of the best and brightest disrupted simply so they can experience a bottom set? You would give a less gifted student an inferiority complex by forcing them to reach beyond their faculties?
Being in a bottom set is not horrible if you belong there, that is if relative to your peers that is where you rank.
Forcibly leveling the playing field does not facilitate achievement it only fosters resentment and apathy, frustrating all those concerned including the teachers.

[Moiraclaire]

(Original post by lapis.chloerose)
I wish I could have negged you more than once...
You would have the education of the best and brightest disrupted simply so they can experience a bottom set? You would give a less gifted student an inferiority complex by forcing them to reach beyond their faculties?
Being in a bottom set is not horrible if you belong there, that is if relative to your peers that is where you rank.
Forcibly leveling the playing field does not facilitate achievement it only fosters resentment and apathy, frustrating all those concerned including the teachers.

Huh ? I totally agree with being set !!! No being in bottom set would not be horrible if you belong there as that would be better for you, which is why you should be set !? however if you're in bottom set and you think you cna do better (like the arrogant child of myself), you're given the impetus to work hard so you can get out !?

Mixed ability classes and comprehensive (where I've had the misfortune of being educated) were ill thought out, I'm so jealous of everyone at grammer school: the atmosphere, enthousiasm and extracurric they've been able to enjoy etc !?

When complaining about how I was a dumb/lazy kid, I was trying to highlight that being put in a low set at a young age doesn't condemn you to taking foundation GCSE oaoers as long as you are routinely set.

[PrinceyJ]

(Original post by Moiraclaire)
history is totally discrete - you only need to know the GCSE syllabus well, whereas maths is accumulative

In terms of content, History is discrete. However, you have to think about the analytical skills that one accumulates when studying it, not forgetting the way the exams force you to make reasoned arguments etc.

[Moiraclaire]

(Original post by PrinceyJ)
In terms of content, History is discrete. However, you have to think about the analytical skills that one accumulates when studying it, not forgetting the way the exams force you to make reasoned arguments etc.

Yerh I was thinking that as I wrote it :/ History is a lot of work eitherway (whatever set you'd came from)

[Julii92]

I don't really get resits. In Scotland you get a single chance with your Highers or Advanced Highers. True, there are sometimes course work elements but the bulk of the marks come from one exam, which you get one chance at, only. You can appeal a result based on prelim grades but that's not the same as getting to resit a paper.


If you're seriously ill or a family member dies on the day of the exam then you're given another chance (I think) but if you're simply having an "off day", then it's tough luck.

[chill543]

(Original post by Clare~Bear)
Yes. But the A* distinguishes the very top students from the rest, can you call yourself that clever if you had to pay loads of money to retake?

its free at my school.......