No, 624 is good because the hour divides the minutes

I would try and be there at 730 with my reading book and folding stool and hope only about 5-10 people were there already

You really need a backup plan for those who can't cope otherwise it's just very unkind to put them on the course and let them fail. (And you don't necessarily know which people this is at the start) Core Maths is a great course (but only worth an AS in credit)

Interesting, thank you

Do you have students who start with 8s and 9s at GCSE?
Do they get fed up while you cover stuff they know already? Or do those with 6s to do extra work outside lessons to catch up?
Asking because I struggle with the mixed attainment class we have - some are much, much slower to grasp things

Thank you,that is really interesting.

Yes. However in my experience (in our school) the majority of our candidates with 'only' 6 at GCSE remain either weak in ability, or idle, or both. Most of ours stayed on from Y11, and our GCSE teaching is strong, so if they have only a 6 it's not a good sign. There are some exceptions of course.

I'm not just being obnoxious here, this is a genuine question - if they're that good how come they 'only' got 6 at GCSE?

So 70% get D, E or U

I'm wondering how you go from 6 at GCSE to C or better at A level because I have rarely seen this. Except where the 6 was an underachievement because of circumstances or they were new to the UK. Is there data for the actual numbers of entries by GCSE grade?

That you can get on with a D or E at A level?
I do think that ideally Maths teachers should have a good understanding of Maths... maybe this is an unpopular opinion

Ugggh really?
Do you think people can get through a maths (or heavily mathsy) degree with a 6 at GCSE and the likely ensuing A level performance?

I would say you can teach some topics much more successfully than others to a m/a class. And how well the class performs might depend a lot on how weak your weakest are. And how (dis)advantaged your cohort is.

I know this is a bit rude but I would say that looking at our Y7 intake, mixed attainment Maths teaching in primary has not worked well for about half of them. The 'top' half are mostly fine but the rest hate Maths already and are not numerate. Not the primaries' fault - KS2 has too much content.

My impression is that it's a really tiny proportion who leave mainstream primary and go to special secondary, but I could be wrong (I am secondary Maths)

And, for various reasons, the top end are stronger coming to Y7 than they used to be, and the bottom end weaker, and more of them. So the 'mix' is more challenging.

I'm busy, I'm tired, I'm not getting any younger. Kids' behaviour post Covid is something else as well. Many are not willing to try anything independently, which is necessary if they are not all doing the same thing.

You are assuming people are able and willing to take on a massive extra workload in order to deal with this. I don't think that's fair to ask of us.

And when I started. But if you have a sizeable number of students way below everyone else's level it's not a good experience for them and better to take them out as a group for extra help. Mixing the rest in Y7 is ok but the most able usually get bored...

Totally mixed in Maths is awful unless either you have really small classes, with well behaved students and TA support (in which case it's ok) and/or your cohort are naturally not that spread in attainment.

Not in Maths, please

It is.

That is sensible...

I don't know! I suspect there is some stats in Biology?
Or some 6th forms are just requiring 6 in Maths to take a Science A level??
I know my school's 6th form doesn't, but then we let kids on to Maths A level with 6 (which is not a good idea, but...bums on seats...)

The new "fat" A levels are ridiculously hard

Why are we reteaching all the Y5 and Y6 stuff in secondary then?
Is it just that there is too much in the KS2 curriculum for the average student to grasp securely? (This has been my assumption)

We already have the "entry level" qualifications and some schools put their students in for these as well as GCSE (but I know they are not understood or respected as they should be)

And, as you say, a level 1 certificate would be much more appropriate for the weakest learners.

Yes, you are absolutely right about the problem. I'm just not sure if this is the solution.
If everyone got better teaching in primary (less content, spend longer getting it secure, less SATS pressure) I think we'd have fewer problems in secondary. Would still need something better for the weakest.

Lots of bright girls won't take it then if it uses up an option choice.
I think maybe leave Higher tier alone but do something to make Foundation more reasonable? And have some criterion referencing because it's definitely harder to get a 4 than it used to be. And better options for resitters.

In some ways this sounds great, but I would worry that some able students who "should" take the 'extra' content would opt out if given the choice (especially if it was in an option block against something else they were interested in). How would you guard against this?