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?

Fair point bonsoir.

I do think there has to be huge flexibility. Plenty of movement as deemed appropriate. I've been very fortunate with this so far. Sets are regularly reassessed, particularly after the May exams.

One small thing, sorry if anyone has mentioned this, is that colour groups are not really neutral. People will usually subliminally give Red to the top group, and Yellow/Green always seem to be somewhere nearer the bottom. The children will have the same associations with colours, so they'll pick up the levels easily.

As a parent of a child with less ability, I think setting was the saving of him.

Before that he was working next to his best friend who also happened to be the brightest boy in the class and who wasted no opportunity of pointing out to ds (in the charming way of 5-6yos) that he was doing baby stuff and that he couldn't do the things that his friend could.

Setting meant that ds , actually, exceptionally dim.

But flexibility is clearly a must. It is a great help if you can tell a child that your teacher says that this is what you would need to do to move up a set.

And sadly, struggling at maths and writing is no guarantee that you are going to be good at sports: in fact children whose coordination skills develop late are quite likely to struggle at everything.

"in fact children whose coordination skills develop late are quite likely to struggle at everything."

I am curious (but not remotely knowledgeable) about the impact of coordination skills on the rest of life. We have one child, DSS2, with extraordinarily strong coordination skills; one child, DSS1, with very unremarkable coordination skills (and a slight stammer); and one more, DD, who seems much more like DSS2 at present but is still quite young.

DSS2 finds everything about life a lot easier than DSS1 (who is perfectly bright and very conscientious). Is there are a relationship?

Christ. Sounds like times have changed (mercifully) since I did teacher training back in the day. Buzzword then was 'differentiation'.

This was at secondary, mind. The idea was that all ability groups had to be taught together, with the teacher using 'differentiation' to make sure each kid was challenged appropriately for their unique level.

It was insanity. Let the setting begin early, I say. Kids know their own and their classmate's ability very well. No need for pretending otherwise.

I think young children are very matter of fact about these things.

this , ime it is parents who get themselves in such a tizz about levels and 'tables' I do think the majority of children just get on with it,

I just don't believe that kids have a high, medium or low ability and that's that, I just don't believe it.

I think almost ALL children should be taught to the high level.

To me, lowering the bar for the "Low attainment Pupils" is letting teem down.

I believe in education, I believe there is a minimal level almost ALL kids should be able to achieve.

my DS was a typical low ability set, they even put him into the year below ("Pelicans" or some such thing). They gave up on him really, as he was just Low Ability and that was that.

Interestingly, in his new school they expect him to get to a minimum level that is much higher than his old school, and yes, he is rising to the challenge.

My other son was supposedly "high ability" but still would spend frustrating amounts of time twiddling his thumbs.

So i am not impressed with this system at all. IME, parents of high ability group kids like it, the lower group parents less so.

I think it underestimates children's ability to rise to the challenge.

Chandon I agree. Like your DS my DD struggled a lot in her old school and even I labelled her "not academic" to my shame. She moved to a school with higher expectations and has just made level 4a in reading in year 4.

They DO rise to the challenge and they do push one another along.

Chandon
do your kids go to a big state school?

just that I was at private selectives right through till I graduated and I thought like you.

Then I got a temp job in a builders merchant
ask the yard man "pick up that ladder" and headed over to where its needed

• he is still stood there holding it as I had not added the phrase "and bring it over here" - he was not being rude, he WAS that thick.

the potential for learning of individuals is spread over the normal distribution.
its a fact
and the sooner you accept it, the sooner you can get the best out of each person at their level

There is a also a danger inherent in setting that makes schools/teachers assume that the children they have decided will be in the lowest set are children who are in the lower centiles of ability versus the population as a whole, and then teach those children accordingly.

In my DD's school there was a fantastic and horrific example of a boy whose mother I know well, who was being told by his teacher that he was failing - a report full of Ds. The mother took her son to an Ed Psych and he was assessed as being above the 80% centile on all achievement scales versus the population. And he was working in one of his three languages and had only moved to France three years ago. His "failing performance" was only relative to the school population...

bonsoir that is a failure of the teacher rather than setting though
and the best teachers encourage feedback and do tests that pick out hidden skills

the lad in DDs year speaks very badly, so people assumed he was thick
only at secondary school with online testing was his true ability RAPIDLY spotted

and actually that is another point - the modern ability to set tests online that is marked without ANY teacher bias will assist in proper moderation of test scores

EBDteacher 'I'm about to move to a primary school with 1000 kids on role'
I hope you are not teaching spelling (Unless you are putting on very big play)

You can't teach to the 'high level' all the time. That's when lower ability/achieving pupils tune out because they are still at the level of learning basic number skills. Teachers are brilliant when they involve all children in a maths lesson but still get them to feel like they have all learnt something new. Not easy.

Bonsoir that is true.

At DC's prep school, the ability level was incredibly high. Not selective BTW (other than haiving to pay the fees of course). Just how it came out in the wash.

DH had a conversation with the Head Of Studies who told him that in DC's year group, based on CAT tests and some other stuff, there were only three or four DC in the entire year who would be considered below the national average. In a year of 60!

Pupils could easily be in the lower sets and be well above average nationally. My DD had a bit of a shcok when she moved on to a school with a much more mixed ability.

Nope, it's not a crap idea.

What is the point of somebody who is working on algebra doing group work with someone who is still struggling with their number bonds to 10?

And I say this as a parent to DC's at opposite ends of the spectrum.

I had DD who at the end of Y6 was working on p-scales still, and I have DS1 who in Y6 is working on level 5/6 English and level 6/7 Maths.

What possible use would it have been for someone like my DD to do group work with someone like my DS1? Or vice versa?

I think it is an eminently sensible idea for those at opposing ends of the spectrum.

DD would have been frustrated trying to work with someone like my DS1, she wouldn't have understood the concepts, and the higher ability child would have had to do all the work.

My DS1 would be frustrated because he wouldn't be able to make someone like my DD understand the concepts, and it isn't his job to try to explain it to them, it's the teacher's job.

IMO, it's a necessary fact of having mixed ability classes.

And certainly in Secondary, my DD wasn't discounted just because she was in bottom set.

They have the bottom set much more LSA time, and at the end of Y9, my DD was moved out if bottom sets for everything.

She is now on course to gain a 'D' in Maths and English, and a 'C' in Catering, Science, Textiles, and Health and Social care.

This is a child who couldn't grasp their number bonds to 10 in Y6, despite my best efforts. And she didn't learn to read AT ALL until she was 8yo.

So I think setting, where the correct support can be targeted, works spectacularly well for those at the bottom end of the ability spectrum.

And for DS1, being taught in a cross-year group of 6 that pitches the work at an appropriate level has enabled him to be at the point where he has sat his 11+ and gained a mark that will more than likely get him a place in the local superselective Grammar school. And has pushed him far further than he would be had he been working to the same level as the majority if his Y6 class.

So setting also works for those at the higher ends of the ability spectrum.

At my children's primary school which is two-form entry, they now have two maths, literacy and science groups. High and middle groups are taught by the two class teachers. The lowest group, which is the smallest in size, is taught by a specialist teacher. Outcomes for all children are massively improved and what is interesting is that the confidence of the middle ability children has increased because their contributions are not being overshadowed by the most able children.

LaQueen - my experience of mixed ability groups in Primary schools is not that they bring the lower achieving pupils up to a higher level, but that they leave the lower achieving pupils not understanding a thing, and leaving them to drift and fall even further behind.

It's exactly WHY I prefer setted groups in the majority of lessons.

It doesn't benefit either end of the ability spectrum to be taught mixed ability, and anyone that kids themselves that the children don't know what set they are because they've named them squares, or green, or eagles in the case of DS2's bottom set group, is talking bolleaux IMO.

My DC's ALL know that everybody is good at something, but nobody can be good at everything.

And that you put the same amount of effort into things whether you are the best or worst in the class at it, because it is the only way to improve, even if you will never be as good at Art as Jane, or as good at Maths as Johnny, you can still do YOUR best, take pride in the things that YOU are good at, be happy for others for the things THEY are good at, and work hard even in things that YOU are not good at, so you can truthfully say that YOU have done YOUR best.

No two people have the same skill set. DD can cook like a Michelin chef. She can't grasp Shakespeare for love nor money.

DS1 can understand Maths concepts that baffle my Dbro that got an 'A*' at A-Level in Maths. But ask him to draw a recognisable picture and he is unable to.

Different skill sets, that's all. Everybody is good at something, nobody is good at everything.

For a bright child there is nothing more demotivating than being told to put their hand back down to let others have time to get the answer

For a thick (call a spade a spade) child there is nothing more demotivating than realising that they will NEVER answer those questions this academic year

For a middling child there is nothing more demotivating than constantly being ignored while attention goes to the other two groups.

As soon as each of those groups are working with others at their level they are all motivated to do their best at their level and if possible rise above it.

Teachers working with ability tables can set work by table and help each pupil at an appropriate level - or encourage them to help, support and challenge each other ...

I think that teachers should move away from "hands up". It allows children to hide and not engage in the lesson.

There are handheld devices which allow all children to partisipate in the lesson. IPADs, netbooks or systems like Quizdom which allow all the children to give an answer to questions. Or the teacher can get the children to write on whiteboards so all children are engaged.It also shows the teacher which child understands a certain topic. Even the brightest of children can misunderstand a critical step.

I have discovered that my son who is on top table for maths does not understand long division. I find this shocking. When I was his age 80% of the class could do long divison with really complex numbers like 246/5.7. My son struggled to solve
4840/16 without a calculator.

@ Talk in peace - you said: the potential for learning of individuals is spread over the normal distribution its a fact

Possibly but I'd argue all can do more than they think and it's rather depressing we decide a child's capacity for learning and potential in primary school. Our whole NC is set up to see the cohort in terms of high, middle and low ability - that's how teacher's describe them as a reference point. Each group being identified by the end of KS1 and progress benchmarked against these labels. Perhaps that's what these children are as it's 'normal distribution'? Not sure.

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...

This works perfectly well in my childs school, in a country that beats the UK on all aspects of education and literacy.
In the UK you seem to spend more time on shuffling children around and doing paperwork than actually teaching them.