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?

charles sorry, both bits were aimed at gato as they had concerns about their child being on the lower ability table.

I then realised it sounded like I was for streaming so had to add a bit on to clarify that I'm not!

I think this us a great idea and absolutely should be done. It probably is everywhere, but just called 'green group' and 'blue group' for example. In my dds reception class, done children, generally older girls, are writing stories. Others are barely writing their name. It would be absolute lunacy, and utterly unfair on the better ones , to lump them together. I see lots on this thread want dumbing down to start already .

That's the problem with setting - benefits the brightest (who already have a head start) and puts everybody else at a disadvantage.

Everybody's all for setting. Until their child is in a bottom set.

Sorry Hungry, didn't mean to teach you to suck eggs.

Are you sure this is what they are doing?

It would seem extremely unusual in a primary school.

So many children are strong in literacy and less so in numeracy and vice versa.

And can change completely (in either direction) over a school year.

By Yr2 many schools have different 'tables' working at different levels or speeds but they are very flexible and children move about as appropriate.

Have they told you it is policy to stream like this?

They might be doing a rough sort to ensure that there is an equal range of ability in each class?

I would argue that reception is exactly the age to separate.there is a massive difference between a four and a five year old, which will gradually even out as they get older.

Current thinking is that ability grouping is quite harmful to progress, attainment and well-being. Shirley Clarke advocates mixed ability. Brave schools are moving in this direction.

I am all for streaming and setting, but not at KS1! Is this an English school, a state school, private or Academy?

I would love to know what the percentage up supporters of ability streaming / grouping have their child in the top set. It is always those who benefit the most who support it and to hell with everybody else. Evidence shows that even the most able benefit from ability grouping.

I have been teaching for 8 years, am a parent and I do not agree in ability grouping at any stage of primary. I believe it becomes a necessary evil in the later years of secondary due to the need to teach to different levels in the syllabus.

I can't see how streaming is ever useful.

What about a child with ASD who begins to flag in literacy in Y5 because it all starts being about emotional inference and motivation that they find really difficult- but who is great at maths and science.

Or a kid who is a creative writing nut and headed for being an author but can't get along with physics?

Or a kid who has a gift for DT and graphic design but doesn't read so well and is a bit of a handful?

I would argue that few kids are true all-rounders- so who is served well by streaming? I wonder how much behaviour and class socio-economic factors influence streaming too.

I see lots on this thread want dumbing down to start already .

ffs

I was streamed for literacy and numeracy in years 5 and 6 and then for the whole of secondary school, and it was just fine. It does really help those in front not get dragged down by the others, and those in lower groups can get the more specialised attention that they need. I was in the top or second-highest group for everything so they couldn't have been too exclusive. I have dyscalculia and was in the top maths set btw, at a high-performing comprehensive.

Charles but then they'd be in high groups for some subjects and lower groups for other subjects. You can't be good at everything! Sorting classes according to ability means students are taught according to their ability which surely helps better teaching?

I am really glad I was in classes according to ability, I would have been so bored in mixed-ability settings. Not sure about KS1 though, things change so quickly there.

I don't believe in streaming in primary school at all but certainly not before KS2. It's absurd.

No, arethereanyleft, I don't want dumbing down to happen. I have a good degree from a top 5 university and believe in stretching all children to reach their full potential. I also believe that's perfectly possible in a class of children of a huge variety of attainment levels. Also it has been found in many studies that children work best supporting one another on mixed ability tables as well, but I think there has to be done discretion here due to some tables needing teaching assistants.

If children get bored in mixed ability classes, the teacher is inadequate and not stretching and differentiating appropriately.

Myrtledove in a 'stream' you are in the same stream (class) for everything. If you can be in a high group for one subject but a lower one for another then it is 'setting'.

I can see the point of setting.

Ability should overlap between the groups to accommodate other desirable objectives (like gender balance, separating trouble makers from others, allowing kids who do better with a challenge or being top of the group, etc.)

I wouldn't worry at all.

DS's teacher seems very hot on mixed group learning (year3). Initially I was a bit concerned that he always seemed to be paired with the same, much lower attaining little boy, (I may have made the odd crack about him drawing a TA salary).

But to honest, I am eating my words. They both seem to be getting so much out of the relationship and helping the other little boy is definitely reinforcing DS's learning. They also have a really nice friendship going on. DS said "Me and X like totally different stuff but we are still mates".

Dumbing down?

I think children should be able to learn at the speed that suits them, in different subjects.

But how does streaming at such a young age help? Unless they will be flexible enough to move them every time their progress develops of pauses? In a streamed primary that would mean changing class all the time.

In mixed ability classes my DC thrived on the most appropriate table for each subject.

DS, a very young summer baby, couldn't read fluently until Yr 2 (but then the average age for learning to read is 6, whereas on Mn it is 3.5, apparently...). With maturity he is now in the G&T group for English in secondary and on a level higher than anyone else in his top set.

I think this us a great idea and absolutely should be done. It probably is everywhere, but just called 'green group' and 'blue group' for example. In my dds reception class, done children, generally older girls, are writing stories. Others are barely writing their name. It would be absolute lunacy, and utterly unfair on the better ones , to lump them together. I see lots on this thread want dumbing down to start already

Most schools (well, a lot of schools I don't have the figures to claim "most") do it for "groups" so, for example, DD1 is in Y1 in a mixed class. For a good portion of their Maths and English they are in ability sets -- she's in top set English and middle set Maths. They've been setting in those subjects since halfway through Reception; in her case she started off middle set for both but has gradually worked her way up the English sets as her skills have developed. DS, at the same school several years ahead, started off in top set English and second set Maths, was moved down to second set English for a year or so because, although able, he worked slowly, then moved up to top set English again once his speed picked up, then in Y3 suddenly "got" Maths and moved up to top set in that as well. This is all normal.

What the OP is describing is a situation in which children are put into streamed-ability classes throughout their primary careers, so either (a) there won't be movement between streams, or (b) movement between streams is going to involve disrupting existing social/friendship groups. Also, what does the school do with a child who's ahead in English and behind in Maths (or vice versa) -- you're basically guaranteeing that they are going to be out of level for at least one of those subjects. Thinking that this is a really bad idea has nothing to do with "dumbing down".

It's a state school, has an excellent reputation, long waiting list, I know people would think I'm bonkers if I took her out of the school
I was in a steamed secondary school and was in class 4. It went fron 1 to 4. 4 being the lowest obviously. The teachers would swear it wasn't streamed but it was very obvious it was. It made me lazy. Im only speaking for myself but I felt because I was in class 4 ,not much was expected of me and therefore I really wasn't bothered. I used to look around and see others doing nothing and I'd be sure what's the point, I can't be arsed.stupid I know
But I don't want this for dd.

In the primary school I last worked in, the two Y2 classes were mixed when they got to Y3 precisely because, as time had gone on, it became apparent that one class had a much higher number of high achieving pupils than the other. This was not seen as a good thing, so they were mixed up to make the two classes more evenly split. The school was a big believer in mixed ability classes and the success of this was shown in the fact that they always got excellent results. Of course there were different ability groups for maths and english, but not always, and movement between the groups was very fluid.