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?

mrsshears
in primary that may well be the case - there are only so many permutations of 27 kids!

up at secondary with 300 its much morefun ....

I don't think it matters if the schools PSHE is good enough and everyone is valued for what they can do.

The school my dc go to have a top table for maths, then the rest of the class, then the ones who are struggling are in a separate class.

I know what the OP means by saying the ones that are on the top table can become complacent, this is what happened with my ds, but it doesn't seem to be a problem now at secondary where there are more children so lots of them are at the same level as he is.

He was always top at maths but by far the worst at anything PE related. He helped others with maths, they cheered him on at sports day when he was the last to cross the line in the running race. It's all down to the pastoral care of the school as to whether or not setting is a problem.

I don't think the labeling is to hide who is best. Children are astute and will figure things out with or without ambiguous labels. More there isn't positive and negative labeling which may affect self esteem and make achievement seem unattainable or encourage coasting. Also helps keep the competitive parenting in check (until they figure it out at least) .

DS was in a school with no grouping, left to sit alone when he'd finished. Now he's in a school that uses the grouping system. I like that he's not thinking he's "Top" though, prefer to approach grouping as "Everyone learns at different speeds" rather than "Yes, you're best!"

Streaming is done for numeracy literacy and phonics from y1 in dd's school. Children move classes so three classes become five (more groups for phonics)streamed classes. Even in y1 children are well aware of the order of the classes even if top group literacy teacher isn't top group numeracy teacher. There is a lot of movement between groups though so I don't think children live up to or down to the expectations.

"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."

You are right about five year olds, certainly year 5 onwards children are aware of their levels. My son's classroom has huge posters telling the chidlren what to do to get a level 5. They also look at examples of work and say what's good about them.

I think it's a tricky subject and I think it's really hard to find a solution which suits every child.

DS (Y1) is in the upper set for numeracy and phonics, he genuinely isn't aware of this- despite the fact that he joins children from Y2 for phonics. Either the school manages this very well, or DS has little awareness of this type of thing. I suspect it is the latter, he doesn't seem to know what is going on half of the time.

Yes, ReallyTired, in a minority of poor schools who pile stress and expectation on the children's heads to better their SATs scores. No child has any need to know about APP levels, it's simply irrelevant to their learning and enjoyment of learning.

"My son's classroom has huge posters telling the children what to do to get a level 5."

How depressing.

ReallyTired, I'm also curious as to how you think children can tell the difference between sub-levels, given that technically they don't exist.

Trained professionals often have to hold moderation meetings and get second opinions to level pieces of work.

Are you really suggesting that a 5 year old knows how to level sentence clauses, narrative, viewpoint, comma splicing, morphemes etc etc etc.

APP is a complicated system even to adults.

"it's not unusual for there to be loads of information in a classroom to know what a level 4 / 5 looks like"

Yes, and it's depressing.

I do think it's a good idea if children know what a good piece of work looks like - but that's basic modelling that teachers should be doing anyway.

It doesn't have to be tied to tenuous sub-levels and SATs-obsessed displays.

My son's secondary school has mixed ability teaching in English at all levels including GCSE and has the best results in their London borough.

As long as there is free movement between the tables, then I think it is beneficial.
I have DS1 who is in year 6 and has tended to always be on the top tables. He knows EXACTLY what SATs he got at the end of last year and where he stands within the class. For him, it is beneficial as there seems to be some healthy completion as to who will do best.
DS2 is in year 4 and has slowly worked his way up through the years from 3rd to top ( for want of a better word) table. He has mild SNs and is a summer birthday, so although he is, and had always been, able he has not always attained as well as some of his peers. He knows he is now in higher groups than he used to be and is proud of the fact; it has done his confidence a lot of good.
DS1 did go onto the second table for maths at one stage. It didn't seem to bother him unduly, but seemed to give him something to strive for. He was both pleased and slightly surprised when he went back to the top table.

Setting is vital, it is the only way a school can ever hope to cater to so many children at once.

when I was at school In the dark ages we had desks and the brianiest was on the first desk and so on I was usually in the 4th row out of 5 half way up I think tables is a much better idea , when dd2 was in primary she was on a 'low table' but she wouldnt have coped with children who were further ahead than she was, IMO that would make her feel inadequate, dd1 was in a top group and they can get on with work better, but they didnt sa
y top table or anything like that I am sure it was colours

My 'good' comp secondary school (ie 80% good catchment area 20% shit hence good results despite poor leadership) didn't believe in setting for ANYTHING except mathis until GCSE, and then only set for maths and languages. Science and English was mixed.

Not fun. Some of my worst memories of school being taught in mixed ability classes. How can you possibly teach a class of 32 14 year olds effectively when some can barely read and some are v clever and interested in the subject? Hated it hated it hated it. That fails both the brightest and those who are struggling.

My primary school didn't have 'tables' we all just sat at desks in pairs in alphabetical order. I can't remember if we were given separate work, feel like we probably weren't except the 'if you've finished x y z do a b c" type stuff. That was a private girls school tho and quite old fashioned.

Oh, don't get me started with high school. My school setted, but for some reason decided to have two top sets. So if pupils wanted to take the higher paper (the only way to get higher than a B grade) they had to come in out of hours for extra lessons. The class time was taken up with preparing the people who would have been bottom of set 2 to even pass.

Then in English, almost the entire (GCSE level) lesson was taken up with listening to other people read out loud a page at a time. I used to have to ask to take books home to finish because we would spend six weeks reading then just abandon it, because some of the kids couldn't even cope with that.

Geography was mostly colouring in. IT was making a very very basic spreadsheet and saving it in a folder.

It was all such a waste of time, and I'm not even massively clever, just above average for that particular school.

BrittaPerry did we go to the same school?!?

The agony of listening to other people murder a book one painfully mispronounced and stilted word by word.

Seriously, your description of IT and geography match mine perfectly.

I used to have finished all the work in geography (written on the board or every lesson) BEFORE the teacher had finished explaining it.

Boredom is my overwhelming memory of high school. And bright, board kids with a slight attitude problem/lack of respect don't make easy pupils.

Ps you could combat the English book reading problem by reading ahead which would keep you entertained for about 3 lessons. Then you were stick for the next 6 with nothing to read at all.

Tip for any of my DCs... If asked a question about what you think might happen in the book, don't answer with what actually happened and explain you finished the book weeks ago and have been reading something entirely different during class.

At my primary school we used a lot of workbooks for English and Maths (as it then was). We'd have a 30 min lesson and just work through as many exercises in our books as possible. Then go up and let the teacher tick the answers.
Obviously different children were working on different books, I progressed quickly and found that sort of work ridiculously easy. But my main memory is of feeling ashamed and 'different', I wasn't allowed to mention to anyone what level I was working at or how easy I found it, it was all very hush hush. It was quite a lonely experience.

As a result, I much prefer everything to be out in the open and for children, parents and teachers to very open and relaxed about abilities.

In my dds primary they are given colours. It doesn't stop dd boasting she is on orange and her friend is only on yellow table though.
My older dd is in set 3 for maths however has just got 6c s in maths (year 8) I'm glad she's in that group as its improved her confidence and she's getting higher grades than some in set 1.

It's more damaging to hide it - surely if the children know (which they do) it's more likely to lead to a sense of shame if they feel it needs hiding even by the teachers. The idea of hiding or disguising it may be well-intentioned but it's a mistake.

I work in a large school so we are able to ability set classes for maths and English higher up the school. We haven't started yet for this academic year (we give teachers a bit of time to get to know their classes and it allows for us to check that there are no anomalies among the levels from last year), but the children have been driving me mad constantly asking when they are going into sets, especially the low ability ones.

It seems they much prefer it as the whole class teaching is much more suited to their ability and you don't have children feeling like they are lost or treading water. In the lower sets there is a huge emphasis on building confidence, and the top set has a much more competitive atmosphere to stop complacency.

We do regularly assess and move as appropriate, which is incredibly important in ensuring that the children don't feel labelled or stuck.

I was a bit sceptical at first, but having seen it in action I think it is incredibly valuable, especially for maths. In English I don't think it is as important, except for a few children who don't have secure phonic knowledge etc. and can't access the whole class texts, where a separate class is invaluable.

IMVHO felxible should be early, rigorous and flexible.

When done well, it helps children of all abilities.

I agree that setting can be a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy that is beneficial for bright children (or those identified as bright...) and harmful for the less able (or those identified as such). I think that schools are not always very skilled at evaluating pupils.