To be sad ds has been 'moved down a table'

[Givinguph0pe]

Ds is 6 and a half and in year 2.
In his own words he's been moved from the 'smart table to the not smart but not stupid table.'

I'm not hugely surprised as I don't think he's as bright as the children in the top ability group - except perhaps for numeracy. I feel stupidly sad though, especially as it seems to have knocked ds's confidence.

Ds is in reception and they set for literacy in that they separate into 5 small groups based on ability (baseline assessment on entry) - makes sense when you have some children who are already free readers and some children who don't recognise all their letters. DS is in the bottom set I think (I havent actually asked), as he had zero interest until he started school and I didnt really do much to push him. Now he's making great progress, has sorted his letter sounds and is reading short words- very enthusiastic and proud of himself. The school say that it largely evens out by Yr 2, but that they believe teaching at the appropriate level in reception and year 1 is the best way to ensure that happens.

What did you say to him when he told you he was on the smart table?

It's not the grouping that's the problem, but the way that the child is perceiving grouping that needs to be changed. I'm also surprised that the groups don't change for numeracy and literacy, and that they don't have different places for topic and art, as that's usually how primary grouping works.
If you have 30 children, one teacher and an ability range that can span4 years in one class, you have to differentiate in planning, deliver the teaching and assess the effectiveness in order to plan the next step. So it's efficient to group children with similar needs.
But not for every activity.

A famous study by Robert Rosenthal showed how labelling kids, or rats, can affect their performance. Here is a description of his work with rats:

"Rosenthal is well known for his research on experimenter expectancy effects, the influence that a researcher can exert on the outcome of a research investigation. In one of his early experiments, he tested the effects of experimenter expectancy on maze-running performance. He had two groups of students test rats, wrongly informing them either that the rats were specially bred to be "maze dull" or "maze bright." In reality, all rats were standard lab rats, and were randomly assigned to the "dull" and "bright" conditions. The results showed that the rats labeled as "bright" learned the mazes more quickly than those labeled as "dull." Apparently, students had unconsciously influenced the performance of their rats, depending on what they had been told. Rosenthal reasoned that a similar effect might occur with teachers' expectations of student performance."

And his work with children:

All students in a single California elementary school were given a disguised IQ test at the beginning of the study. These scores were not disclosed to teachers. Teachers were told that some of their students (about 20% of the school chosen at random) could be expected to be "intellectual bloomers" that year, doing better than expected in comparison to their classmates. The bloomers' names were made known to the teachers. At the end of the study, all students were again tested with the same IQ-test used at the beginning of the study. All six grades in both experimental and control groups showed a mean gain in IQ from before the test to after the test. However, First and Second Graders showed statistically significant gains favoring the experimental group of "intellectual bloomers". This led to the conclusion that teacher expectations, particularly for the youngest children, can influence student achievement."

In schools that put children at tables by ability, not only the teacher is aware of the label, but the child ALWAYS knows, and so do all of his or her peers.

It seems so obvious that this can be terribly damaging.

Most infant classes were set when I was teaching. There was fluidity within different subjects but I set them by what reading books they were on.

This was because they were practising reading when they arrived in the classroom and while I was doing morning admin stuff and could help each other.

They moved around quite bit during the day but that was their "home table".

I agree with the poster who said that DCs are fairly astute and soon work out where they are within each subject.

claraschu, I agree that the Pygmalion effect is very damaging, wasn't that study was done in the 60s or 70s in the USA?
Education in this country has changed beyond recognition, and we have moved from completely mixed ability and little differentiation to very tightly-monitored planning teaching and assessment.
That's one of the key complaints that primary teachers have made for years, that in most schools the idea of educating the whole child has gone and it's about achieving targets upon which a teacher's job and the school's success depends. Add that to the demands of inclusion (which I'm a strong supporter of where appropriate) and the range of needs is huge.
It can also be demoralising for a lower ability child to be in a group with others who fly through things and are obviously managing to achieve things that they aren't yet capable of. Or for a young child who is academically able but with less developed social skills to deal with a child in their group who doesn't manage what they can do, and they struggle not to dominate in the guise of helping.

There are better ways of doing it, but the range of ability in the class will be huge and they need appropriate work for them.

My eldest son (summer born) was on the bottom table right up til year 4.
He was called stupid and slow by his peers.
He told me he had a "stupid brain"
He was 5 :(
Lots of bullying, a school move and intervention for his severe dyslexia and he is now doing well.
It's tricky.
My younger son (September born) is top table for everything (year 2) but there are kids in his class that are still on phase 1 phonics...the teachers have to put kids of similar ability together.
I do wonder where the kids get this "stupid table" stuff from...:(

Oh and of course ds2 is nearly a year older than a couple of the children in his class!

To which I kept saying stupid wasn't a kind word and people have different strengths and weaknesses

I think you need to be a lot firmer with him about this and not allow him to speak like that. He may be going to school and saying it too, which I'm sure won't go down well with the parents of children on that table.

I agree.

Grouping is unavoidable for lots of lessons, and children aren't daft - they work it out.

I teach and my groups are changed daily, according to where the children are at (we do little assessments as we go along and group them for their next lesson). But, there are some children who will always be tackling the harder work, and some who will always be tackling the easier work, and it's fairly hard to avoid that without just giving them the same work.

We do lots of talking about people being good at different things, and often less academic children are amazing at something else (eg PE or Art) so we make sure they get recognition for these things too!

I think that you need to be a lot firmer with him and not let him label children smart or stupid. Point out that a lot of those on the so called 'bottom table' may be just as clever, or maybe cleverer, later on. My son was in the 'bottom' maths group all through primary school but got A at A'level and went to a RG university to do a science subject. The school felt, and I agreed, that he was much better going at the slower pace. Had he been in the 'top' maths group he would never have had the same grounding.
If you start 30 5 yr olds off together in Maths they will be in different places by the end of the week - (even if you don't allow for the fact they were in different places at the start) They need appropriate teaching.

Children much prefer to work at the level they understand. I had a very good maths text book once and having taught the topic the exercises were split into A,B and C. Those who were a bit unsure started on C and worked up to A, those who were reasonably secure started on B and worked up to A and those who were very confident started at A. There was no point in them doing C and B. The children self selected. They liked it. No one got it wrong - they like work that they understand. Pointless starting on A if you needed C - and no one else was bothered.

There is no such thing as a "stupid" child. Children are in school for one reason, and that is to be educated. You could do with a couple of lessons yourself, in humility.

The teacher definitely needs to be made aware that children are using this terminology for tables/other children.

Unfortunately, parents may only mention it if their child is on the 'stupid' table, rather than on the 'smart' table, even if they're aware of this nomclemture being used.

These books work on the same principle, although they start with A and C is the most challenging. I've seen them used (not all the time, as part of a range of activities) in a number of schools with success.

DD and ds loved being on the "stoopid" table. They both came to the same conclusion, which I thought was very smart for 5 year olds. If you are on the bottom table you don't have to do a great deal apart from have fun and if you do anything like read a few words you get praised and high fived. Where as if you are on the top table you have to work that much harder and reading a few words is what is expected so you don't get praised and it is so much more serious.

Olivers.
It's also why, when I was a class teacher, I rotated the support so that the TA and I worked with all the children within a week. That way, we both had a good understanding of where everyone was and where they needed to be, and how the cohort as a whole was doing. Which helps with shuffling children for appropriate activities.
I had one child whose arithmetic was very weak, but who excelled at geometry; another who struggled with vocabulary but whose handwriting was beautiful. Every child should regularly get the chance to demonstrate and be praised for something they are good at. In a meaningful way.

slade it isn't my terminology and you may have noticed that I've spoken with ds about it more than once.
I am certain ds has picked it up at school since it isn't something ds would usually say. It seems to be common knowledge amongst his year group. The school is fairly academic and it is a sats year so I suspect that a fair bit of pressure is being put on the the children.
Ds didn't say it in a 'nasty' way - he was just matter of fact about it. I realise it is not the way to speak and it is unkind and as you can see I have talked a lot with ds about it.
I also never praise ds for being 'clever' - not that he is especially anyway - but I always say he's tried hard, or he's been kind, or he's done his best.

My goodness he is only 6! Some older kids do not understand SN and respecting children of different abilities. My main concern woukd be his low self esteem, and working on that, Mabey see the teacher and find out tge issues and what you can do to help. He could gave gotten that phase from another peer. Just reassure him that different children are good at different things, does not make them less.

I find it strange how children know which is the "top table

Really? Why is strange? Children are not erm, stupid, they know perfectly well the ability of a lot of the other kids in the class, especially by the time they get to KS2. Enough to know the 'top and bottom' tables at least (not that I have ever used that terminology in class).

And I really.do not understand how you cannot set by ability, particularly for Maths. In my current year group, the range of.ability is absolutely enormous and you just wouldn't be able.to effectively teach them all together. Even in my set, there is a big range of ability. English.is easier to teach mixed abikity, but a lot of the time the work is differentiated sp fhat each child.can access the learning.

Ability tables are not so that the teachers can humiliate the pupils and make them wear dunces caps. It's so that each child can be supported to make the best progress they can at their level.

I do agree that kids.calling it the 'stupid' table is a problem, that would need addressing,but you can't.stop the kids noticing these things.

You are right ArmchairTraveller - it was A being the easiest - working up to C..

Of course children know the ability of other children. They are with them all day. If children know all the answers in a class session the others know they are good at maths. If a child sees a child who has 2 neat pages of story when they have a few lines of badly formed letters they realise.

You can't stop children answering questions, you can't hide all writing.

My ds couldn't even read at 6 1/2. He's doing an MA now....

You are right ArmchairTraveller - it was A being the easiest - working up,to C.

Of course children know the ability of other children. They are with them all day. If children know all the answers in a class session the others know they are good at maths. If a child sees a child who has 2 neat pages of story when they have a few lines of badly formed letters they realise.

You can't stop children answering questions, you can't hide all writing.