sorting classes according to ability

[creamandsugar]

Hi, dont know if this is normal but
Speaking to my dds teacher this morning,she's still only in Montessori going to primary school attached in Sept,that they are sorting the class into levels . There are 3 separate classes per year and from what I understood that the weakest students will be in one, medium in another etc.

This seems really wrong! At such a young age,some aren't even 5!!
Aibu?

What so wrong about it? Makes sense that children are working with those who have similar skills. Some will know their colours some won't. Some can already read a little some can't. Some know numbers some don't. It very difficult to give a lesson that covers all abilities at once. As long as there is movement between the groups when skills are acquired what's the problem.

It is really wrong.

Ability as this age is a fairly meaningless concept. You'd end up with classes massively affected by age as older children would be far more likely to be hitting targets. And what targets would they be anyway? And sorting by ability, even if it WAS possible, isn't necessarily going to make a better learning environment for everyone.

Really wrong.

I don't like this idea at all, especially at primary level.

Children vary so much month by month at this early stage.
What happens if a child has a sudden learning leap - this is VERY common in infants and juniors? Or a child goes through a plateau stage - again very common at this stage of education? Do they then reshuffle the classes again? Are the children then kept in the same group and no longer with the "ability" group?

It isn't a very comprehensive education system to set classes by ability. Mixed ability for many subjects, if not all, are far better at this stage.

Also - what ability are the going to assess?

Ability to read
Mathematical understanding - numbers, counting. adding up, shapes, colours, time - which bit?
Knowledge of alphabet and/or phonics
Social skills
Language acquisition levels
Ability to get dressed and changed for PE, outside, etc

A child may be really good at one area and less so at another, and as said before, it varies month to month for children too ....which ability level is deemed the most important to set on?

I think if it's done well it could be a good thing. All the kids will be challenged on their own level.

I would assume that kids are graded according to ability all through school anyway and at least this way kids who need more help aren't left behind and kids who are flying through won't be held back.

Still, having said that, my experience of primary schools was a long time ago and thinugs may be greatly improved with no one being left behind or held back in large classes.

They would be in completely separate classes,there would be no mixing at all, there ate 3 first classes,3 second classes, etc on it goes up until they finish primary school.

I think it's a bad idea, as it risks being 'self-fulfilling'. Children know who is at what level, even if the school do what they can to keep it quiet. They will know they are in the 'slow' class, and that they are not expected to do as much as the others. That has some effect even in groups within a class, but it will be far more with whole class streaming.

Now THAT is even more ludicrous. A summer born boy at 4 might just want to run around and growl like a dinosaur in September of Reception but be top of the class and a level 4 reader (not that those levels would exist then) by the end of Year 2.

Equally though, tearing children away from friendship groups because they are deemed more academically able is nonsensical. And others move 'down' to fill the spaces left??

Silly all round.

Anyone who thinks it's sensible has not spent a lot of time with groups of foundation stage and key stage 1 children.

The pp is bang on. WHAT do you assess? Children with amazing vocabulary and conversational skills might be non-readers. Early readers might struggle with maths and the ability to work cooperatively in groups.

There will be the opportunity to move between classes though I suppose depending on how things pan out over the years?

I think it's a great idea. Children who might coast are pushed to work towards the higher ability classes, and those who are less academic can be taught differently.

The system in UK state schools of not repeating years, or having the chance to skip one or two, doesn't seem to work well for anyone.

I don't like this at all either.
Either there will be movement between classes as dc improve skills which could have an effect on friendship groups, or there won't be movement and those who are achieving will be left in the same class.
My dc wouldn't be in a school like this, but each to their own, maybe somebody can find some positives there.

Ds has been on the lowest ability table since halfway through Yr R, he enters Yr 2 in Sept.

My main worry is that he isnt exposed to all of the information/topics that those with higher ability are learning about so how can he ever catch up.

It's completely wrong, and a number of research studies have shown that vast majority of children actually achieve higher results and go further in mixed ability classes. For some reason, however, quite a few UK parents seem obsessed with ability setting. I find it quite depressing and have taught in a school that got outstanding results in mixed ability classes all the way up to Year 11.
At Reception level, I actually find it abhorrent and disgusting.

I think that's a terrible idea! I have a ds is reception at the moment - he has very high functioning asd and really struggled during the first term, but is now doing incredibly well and really excelling in all areas. I imagine if he'd been put in a low ability group it would have held him back significantly. All children learn at different rates and progress differently and what a knock to a child's confidence to be categorised as low ability at such a young age.

Absolutely gatofeliz, that's one of the reasons that lower attaining children tend to do worse in bottom sets.
I actually prefer the term 'low attaining' to 'low ability' because low ability is a pretty meaningless term if you think about it.

Sorry, know I'm going on about this a bit, but this makes me so angry. What about the vast amount of REASONS a child might be performing at a lower level? Dyslexia? ASD? Global delay? Speech difficulties? The spectrum, especially at primary level, is way too broad to be categorising children in terms of ability. Some children who can't read are amazing at contributing thoughtful and considered responses to class discussions, for instance, and I find it so sad to place them in a low set due to reading ability.

gato a good teacher will ensure that he is exposed to all the info that the higher groups are. In our class, typically all the children sit on the carpet for the input. Then when they go to the tables for independent or group work, the middle group will work on exactly what the teacher has just explained. The top group will do that work and then extend it further (eg if the whole class were working on subtraction with numbers up to 10, tops might go up to 20). The bottom group will do the same work as the middles, but with extra support. The support can either be in the form of an adult working with them, apparatus (such as cubes, number lines) or the layout of the worksheet they are given (such as having the number sentences written so they just need to fill in the answer).

For other topics, the children will be given exactly the same work, but they differ in what they will get out of it. For example, a practical activity such as measuring. The lower ability children might use words such as 'longer' and 'shorter' while doing the task. The middle ability children might be able to put several items in order of length, and the higher ability children might be able to use non-standard units to measure length.

Is it a state school?? If so they will get short shrift from Ofsted for this. My school used to set for English and Maths until a few years ago and Ofsted made it absolutely clear they had to stop.

Our children work both in mixed ability groups and in ability groups. I think ability groups within the class work well in a particular subject (eg maths groups and reading groups), as it means the teacher can tailor the work to their needs better. For example in phonics you may have one child who is working on hearing the 'c' sound at the start of 'cat' and another child who is working on reading multi syllable words with less common pronunciations of letters such as 'celebration' (where the 'c' makes a 's' sound).

But as mentioned children have different contributions to make, a child who can't read could have excellent verbal skills, so I wouldn't want the classes to be streamed, especially this young.

What you are describing is differentiation Hungry. That is best practise and necessary.

What the OP is describing is streaming (split by 'intelligence' for all subjects into groups which do not change). Setting is splitting by ability but altering the sets by subject (so the sets might be different for English/ Maths/ Science etc depending on how able each individual is in each subject).

For older kids setting makes sense. I don't think streaming ever does.

I think it's a terrible idea to stream that young.

Our primary did set for maths in KS2.

But the youngest mine have been streamed is in secondary at year 9 (13/14yos).

Our reception classes are all mixed ability but within the class they have smaller groups for some literacy, numeracy and group reading work. It's never been put to the parents but they are clearly ability groups as you can tell by the children that are grouped together.

I don't think it's a bad thing it they're grouped with similar ability children for some work and some is done across the class.

This is extremely bad practice and I would be very concerned about sending my child to such a school if this is an example of their (limited) understanding of how children learn.

hapless-you are describing differentiation. This is good and all teachers should be naturally doing this anyway. differentiation is extremely different to setting.

Bad idea. Groups within classes are OK as children can move around as they develop. DCs school do this. DS is a high group for English but struggles in maths. What would your school say is more important? Literacy or numeracy?

DD is in reception. One girl started school being able to read but still is struggling to write. Where would they put her?

Oh, and school specifically told us they didn't want us teaching kids anything before school as they had their own methods for teaching and wanted kids to be at the same level where possible to start.

This schools approach is lunacy!

Everyone's an expert when it comes to education.