To think ability setting in primary school is a crap idea?

[mrsshears]

I don't mean different work as obviously that is essential to cater to different abilities I mean all of this 'Top table' rubbish, I think it creates problems and becomes a self fulfiling prophecy for all involved, there must be a better system,AIBU?

DS school set for maths, the 2 classes are slit into 3 maths groups taught in separate rooms, works brilliantly for all abilities.

It would be difficult for me to do group work if all the children were sat at different tables around the classroom. Children are fully aware of how "hard" or "easy" their work is in comparison to all the others, wherever you sit them.

Ho hum. Sure the unqualified non-teachers know more about it than us silly experienced professionals.

I know, let's just give all the kids the same work and the ones who have finished can just sit there and wait for the others...

that is what they do in Finland ....

They all know who's in the top and bottom groups whatever they're called anyway. DS1 realises that the 'cats' are the bottom reading group and the 'rabbits' are the top one.

As long as the reviews are regular and done properly I don't see a problem with it myself.

Setting seems sensible, but other people will know more. More of an aside really - if anyone imagines that most children don't know which is the able table because it's called Sailors, or Diamonds, or Circles, or Lions, then may I disabuse you of that misconception.

Yes Betsey: renaming is for the parents' benefit. But all the parents have to do is ask their five year olds.

Indeed.
When DS was in year 4 I jokingly asked him to rank his year group by maths ability.
I then checked his list against the staff one - he only had two places crossed over
Kids know exactly where they stand
and competition makes them strive a bit ...

Ooh, tell me more about these tables. Dd is in foundation and is already being taken away in a small group to learn how to put letters together to make some words. She's 5 in 2 weeks and can already spell loads of three and two letter words. I wonder if her table is called "the awesome table for the most awesome people, na na na naa naa".

talkin I assume that you also work in the school to have access to the staff list of ability groups?!

The problem with ablitiy tables is that many people see ablity as something that is fixed and cannot be changed. I am sceptical there is such a thing as innate intelligence. Intelligence is developed by hard work.

I think it would be better to have attainment tables rather than ablity tables. Ie a child knows that they have to get to level 4c by a set date to remain on a particular table or that children on yellow table are levels 3b to 4c.

If children know that they can go up on down dependent on hard work and attainment then its more moviating to think that the "sailors" are the clever kids and the "pilots" are thick and useless. Especially as an august born boy may rise 5 tables once he has learnt to control a pencil.

My son's school have children sitting in mixed ablity tables 80% of the time.

I did at the time.

kim
nope, NEVER as good as APP - as he knew where they were at that snapshot but had no way of knowing where they had been or where they could go

and its the pedagogy and understanding of development that parents keep forgetting teachers learn as part of their qualifications and later CPD (married to a PGCE by the way)

In my son's school the top table get given all the nice jobs. In particular the 3 children on the gifted and talent register get preferential treatment. (Ie. picked for parts in plays, asked to greet parents at parent's evening, they show prospective parents round the school, they run the school tuck shop) It would be nice to give all the children the chance at these responsiblites. It hardly requires a level 6 to hand out programmes at a school concert fgs!

The stupid thing is that none of the children on the gifted and talented register are actually gifted and talented. They are just bright children who needs are easily meet by the national curriculum.

I've a DS in the bottom group for everything and a DS in the top group for everything. I do worry that DS2 will end up feeling stupid and stuck.

Getting assessment and progression between groups really, truly right is hard and, imo, requires some experience to do well. I reckon that I was doing it well after about five years of teaching.

DD1 gives me chapter and verse on who sits on what table for what subject and who is best at everything.

Totally agree with LaQueen
and one of THE most damaging things of the last few years was hiding how kids were doing relative to each other.
and those bloody non competitive sports days
they have to benchmark against others and themselves
and not all be expected to be good at everything
(one of the real failings of the national curriculum IMHO - some kids cannot be good at maths, others are rubbish at writing)

My kids brought their monitoring home.
they each got grilled, not against each other but against what I expect from them
then I asked where they are ranked in the (300 pupil) cohort ...

There are only 4 girls in my daughter's class (out of 23). Three of them are at the top table, one is at the bottom table. They are good friends, and never make mean comments to the poor left-out girl.

She has developed a serious school phobia, and fear of groups in general. I doubt she will get back to school (parents are having to HE, though they would not have chosen this option).

In my DD's school they have 4 DC per table...one is very able, two middling and a not so able.

Then they can help one another. The more able child does not get leaned on too much as all the others can help the not so able child.

ReallyTired

Ability groups are usually decided by attainment...and children tend to be moved up and down groups based on attainment, so your point doesn't make any sense.

"Ie a child knows that they have to get to level 4c by a set date to remain on a particular table or that children on yellow table are levels 3b to 4c. "

Yes, what a great idea, because 5-11 year old children of course know all about educational theory, pedagogy, and how to level their work using adult terminology and assessment foci.

There is very very little movement in the groups in dd's class and it also seems that mostly the same dc are in the top groups for each subject.

We will never be able to hide from the children how well they are doing compared to their peers and nor should we.

The kids will be just as aware in mixed or set groups.

There are arguments for mixed groups in some subjects at secondary e.g. I like to see mixed RE groups. Maths and English should always be set IMO, along with History and a few others.