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?

What happens to those that are lost and don't understand VDare? Is the mindset largely they are not working & trying hard enough? Genuinely interested. Where are you from?

But that does not allow for those that can't do the work because it is above their current level of understanding, and it doesn't allow for stretching of those DC's that could do that piece of work four years earlier.

Do both groups genuinely sit there, one group not understanding, one group bored?

I'll hazard a guess at Finland.
Tops lots of tables for getting all kids UP to certain benchmarks
falls down badly at getting bright ones to excel

The teacher helps them, of course. The ones who finish quickly get extra work, the ones who need more time get it.

hamish
children learn at different rates
BUT if you measure intelligence and reasoning ability (IQ is a version of that test) at 21, the results make a perfect Normal Distribution.

I'll hazard a guess at Ireland. Where the education system is not nearly as good as here in many key respects despite VD's claims.

Do the pisa results give averages. It would be interesting to assess how good countris are at dealing with low ablity, middle ablity and high ablity children. Pisa tests tend to focus on the percentage of children who reach a particular standard in maths or literacy.

Some high achieving countries make little or no effort to edcuate special needs children. These children are never going to reach Pisa test standards so it makes no difference to a country's results if they do nothing.

VirginiaDare I am sure you are right. Countries like Finland spend less time labelling children as thick. Finland does have special schools, but I don't know how low a child has to be to be in a special school in Finland.

I am far more comfortable about thinking in those terms & applying that logic at 21 rather than at primary school.

Virginia - I am sure that's only really feasible in small classes? Not against the idea but trying to differentiate to that degree in a large class could be problematic I'd imagine?

Not nearly as good as the UK? Yet we are miles above you on every single league table, on literacy, maths and science, have a higher rate of secondary finishing, far higher rate of third level participation, and more masters and phds by scale?
Sure you're better. Keep shuffling those reports.

TalkinPeace2
IQ cannot be measured relibably at primary school age. Children's cognitive ablities can be improved with the right stimulus and hard work. A child who has had bed time every night since birth has a flying start over a child who has never seen a book.

There have been projects like Cognitive Acceleration in Science that have been shown to improve GCSE results. However these activites get crowded out the curriuculum. Children can develop abstract thinking skills through philosophy as well.

There is evidence that the brain improve its mental function.

www.livescience.com/4336-smart-strategy-brain-muscle.html

Intelligence is not a fixed trait and can be improved upon with hard work.

This is sad

*"Dweck had an experience in 6th grade in Brooklyn that made her want to understand with views people held on intelligence.

"My teacher seated us around the room in IQ order," she told LiveScience. "All the responsibilities were assigned to high-IQ students. Looking back, I always enjoyed learning before, but the experience in that class wasn't about learning, it was about feeling like you had to always look smart or get demoted to one of the lesser seats."

No, it's a great idea. I can then work with children who can not do 1+1 and support them whilst children who can do 1482+1394 in their head and get it right can have extended work (with support as needed) to suit their ability.

Shanghai appears to come first in most of the league tables I've seen - and children in East Asia seem to be consistently at the top. The December 2010 OECD survey of the performance of 15 year olds in maths, science and reading saw Shanghai heading up all 3 rankings - Singapore, South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Japan not far behind.

Shanghai's lead was pronounced over all the others and this was put down to recent educational reform - more power to teachers to shape curriculum, more pay etc.

Rather than the educational system being intrinsically 'better' though studies showed that the high level of attainment was about the cultural traditions of the countries at the top. Put simply Confucian societies valued education more than Western societies.

In the recent OECD PISA survey mentioned Finland was 3rd in reading - behind Korea and Shanghai, and 6th in Maths behind Shanghai, Singapore, Hong Kong, Korea and Taiwan.

Are you in Shanghai Virginia?

Seems the OECD don't agree, VD.
My observations, based on my own experiences and those of family and friends, are this. Education in Ireland is still dominated by oldfashioned textbook-based rote learning which does not teach children how to think for themselves. Comparing my own British-educated children with their Irish cousins, I would not subject them to the Irish educational system for any money. It is far from being inclusive.

Really Tired many schools give cognitive tests as early as Y1 or Y2, they then have the data which shows which children are 'smarter'. If a teacher has this data I've always thought that this may shape their expectations going forward. It's showing 'raw ability' after all. There's a move to give these tests which are apparently 'tutor proof' to determine potential for selective school entry at 11 etc. Some schools use these sort of tests already. Essentially they are a form of IQ test. Thus you've either got it or you haven't and it rather negates all Dweck has been saying - you may have a growth mindset & your cognitive ability might be expandable but it isn't going to get you a good score in a cognitive ability test. Put simply IMO most believe IQ is inherited, pretty much fixed 'normal distribution curve' etc and that's that. Schools don't want the over coached and the diligent they want the quick and the bright who can naturally display their logical skills and speedy thought. It's thought these children will best benefit from a selective education, they have the raw potential.

Hamishbear, Dweck has done substantial reserach. What evidence do you have that its not possible to expand cognitive ablity? Adey managed to improve cognitive ablity of secondary school children in science through lets think.

www.cognitiveacceleration.co.uk/

The children who had the special science activites, did bettter in their GCSEs in maths, english and science. They had developed the higher level abstract thinking skills and this made them more intelligent.

What is wrong with a child being dilignant and hard working?

I feel its important that all children have hope. Giving a child the idea that they can achieve effortlessly or that they will never be able to do something because they failed a silly test is damaging.

Singapore has a culture of hard work in its schools. The children believe its possible to be best through hard work. The opposite is often true in American and British Schools. Cleverness is celebrated more than hard work. It is not deemed "cool" to work hard. A gifted child would rather be seen as lazy than admit that they find something difficult. Hence they under achieve.

Really Tired you're preaching to the choir (more or less). The problem is our current system and entrenched mindsets of the majority - which rather depressingly I don't think are going to change any time soon - mean that most think IQ is heritable and fairly fixed. Our whole NC system divides the cohort into high, middle and low ability. Teachers see the students generally in these terms. The bell curve/natural distribution argument is a strong one.

Cognitive tests - which are meant as a safeguard to spot anomalies - are becoming increasingly common. Diligence isn't generally prized as much as natural brilliance, you sound like you've read Dweck's book (Mindset from memory) so you will know this. Selective schools are not the domain of the middle ability steady plodder etc. They are for the 'high ability' children who by and large most think can be gauged by a 'tutor proof' cognitive test/IQ test of sorts - like the Durham CEM tests (?) These clever children have largely unchangeable superior intellect and are so worthy of the best resources as they will statistically give the best return on the investment to the benefit of wider society.

Just to add something you mentioned about Singapore, Really Tired. You are spot on. An issue can be if you have a child in that system that isn't doing very well, that's falling behind and failing to understand. A potential danger is they are seen as not to be trying hard enough and they make the teacher angry as a result. The students that are top have no problem, the teacher is delighted, no laziness there. The teachers there, IME, believe what one can learn all can learn - a very positive thing in general but potential flaw explained above.

It's a weak argument to compare the UK's education system to other countries.

You cannot compare chalk and cheese.

These people/politicians, who go on about how wonderful schools are in Finland or Singapore (etc), always fail to recognise the enormous impact of things like population density, income and funding, immigration, and a plethora of other social issues that contribute to attainment on league tables.

You could bulldoze every school in the country to the ground and start all over again trying to copy another country's model, and we'd likely still end up with huge differences between our education systems.

MY DSs used to go to a school where the children selected the level of work they wanted to do themselves.So if for example they were working on equivalent fractions, the teacher had 3 different levels of worksheet and the children chose which one to do,This was in a small class (up to 15) and only in Yrs 4-6 though.This seemed to work well.

"It's a weak argument to compare the UK's education system to other countries."

I disagree, strongly. Ultimately, standards are converging across the globe. We need to keep up - in fact, we need to up our game right now.

Bonsoir

Yes, there's a difference though isn't there.

Between looking at other cultures/countries and picking out good bits of their system that would work in ours (which is a good idea), and completely disregarding all the social factors I mentioned above.

It's impossible for us to emulate the system of countries with vastly different demographics to our own. Britain is one of the most densely populated countries in the world. We also have a much much higher percentage of foreign-born residents and residents with different cultures/religions. These things have a massive impact on schooling and how the curriculum must be delivered, to be inconclusive for all.

Finland has a tiny population. It's a completely different country to our own. Same with Singapore and other similar nations that we keep being compared to by Michael Gove et al.

Sure we can look at things that might work in their systems, and perhaps adopt some new features, but there's so much we can't do. It's not as simple as comparing two countries and saying "They're in a better position on the league table, how can we copy them?"

To put it another (stereotypical!) way:

It'd be like comparing the league table position of a well-equipped leafy private school in a nice area, with 15 children per class, to an inner city state school with high levels of social deprivation and 35 children per class.

The likelihood of them ever being able to compete with each other is rather slim.

The state school might be able to pinch a few tricks, and vice versa, but ultimately there are going to be some substantial differences in the way they teach, the resources available per child, etc.

I disagree! Honestly, it's no good making excuses for poor performance in schools. We have to improve our children's education or our standard of living will fall dramatically, relatively but also (and more scarily) in absolute terms.

I think that countries like Singapore and Finland have a different cultural mindset to us. Rather than blaming schools prehaps we need to further and think how we can change our mindset towards education as a nation.

In the UK its not fashionable to admit that you hot house your children. In Singapore it carries no shame to send your child to a crammar to help with exams.

I know immigrant families whose children are doing extremely well in state schools. This is because they have a can do mindset. They see no stigma in working exceptionally hard to pass exams.

They also have a different attitude to failure. The UK blames teachers for all ills of society. Other countries blame the children for not working hard enough. Parents, and children make excuses for under achievement in the UK rather than taking responsiblity for their destiny.