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.

Erm.....I think people having a pop at the op is out of order. Her child is coming home saying this and is upset.

perspective you need to get some, how lovely you have access to a good school, any suggestions on how the op can approach her school to address why her child is feeling like this?

Thankfully my DD's school doesn't have ability tables. They do move into groups for certain subjects and my DD needs extra help anyway. It is actually really positive to have mixed ability because the more able children will learn a great deal more by helping and explaining things to less able children. Win win.

OP - do yourself a huge favour, don't be one of THOSE parents.

This thread is frustrating. Nobody is to blame.

Schools ability group to ensure children access learning at the right level. If they didn't, the majority of the class would find it too hard or easy.

Unfortunately children know this, and are aware they other children have easier/harder work.

At that age, children's vocab is limited. They translate this awareness to a word familiar to them - in this case, "stupid".
Just because this child has said the word it doesn't mean it's been used directly in the classroom.

Children make links. All it needs is a discussion about the connotation of the word stupid.

TheOriginal The more able children will learn supportive skills, but not academic skills. As a teacher, I would be furious if my able child was never challenged. It's also bad for the less able -children are rarely good "teachers", they just tell them the answers. There's a place for mixed learning, but it's rarely productive for anyone in maths or English.

Exactly, perspective those words came out of a 6 year old's mouth, not op!

Well put, MissClark.

missclarke86 have you read any of the books on mixed ability teaching, or any of the evidence into the benefits of it over ability grouping in maths and English.

There's a reason that many schools are moving away from it in order to help improve attainment.

I'd agree that the more able shouldn't be spending their time teaching others, but that isn't really what good mixed ability teaching is about.

Ho do the kids (or parents) even know. I wouldn't have a clue, and I'm sure my dc wouldn't either. They have tables sure (usually animal names), casue they can't all sit together....but either they are mixed ability or they don't care/know

Rafa I haven't to be fair, what do they say?

I don't have children in rigid groups, but I do pre-assessments so they are grouped at a level they are specifically working at depending on the objective. I then do seperate little teaching sessions to move them on as and when they are ready within the lesson. They're rarely in a set group, but the general gist of lower / middle / more able children still seems to remain the same and it's easier in terms of logistics to have them in some kind of positional grouping.

I could work the same system in mixed ability tables, but having them scattered around the room would make it hard for me to keep track of who is on which level or task.

Completely mixed ability, with the idea that the lowers get "dragged up" just doesn't work as far as I can see. There are usually too many barriers. I think as long as we don't pigeonhole children (which is where my pre-assessments come in) and move groups as and when needed, it's effective.

Right groups that never change are detrimental though, as you can underestimate children.

Sorry if I've turned this into a teacher thread, it's just an interesting subject!

Hettie they know from a very young age. (I've taught Year 1 and they've known) because they see the work and make a judgement. They aren't daft, just lots of children are astute enough to relates it's bad taste to comment on it.

Of course children know. You can't prevent it. They see others working and they see the work. I have never had them bothered about where they fall - and this is as the mother of a child who had an IEP and extra help. He still had friends in the so called 'top group'. He needed appropriate work.
Maybe a lot has to do with parents who appear to want a child to be the best and have a lot of angst as to reading books and bands. They appear to want them to rush up the bands rather than just be pleased that they have a book at the right level.

It sounds like you are doing it anyway if you are pre-assessing by objective and your groups are fairly flexible rather than set or only re-arranged every half term or so. That is one of the methods I'm aware of for mixed ability teaching.

The evidence suggests that the lower and middle ability make more progress probably because they don't have a 'glass ceiling' of rigid grouping and differentiation and compared to setting they are also exposed to higher level whole class teaching.

It's a bit more mixed for the higher attainers. There are some studies that show that they do slightly worse ,some that it makes no difference and some that they do slightly better.

What seems to be bad is what can happen in a lot of schools which is that groups are decided on the basis of assessment at the start of a half term, then work is differentiated by group. So blue group will do x task, red will do y task etc with little opportunity for children to show that they are capable of doing harder tasks because they haven't been given the opportunity.

I'm not sure the situation in the OP would have happened if her DS was in a class where grouping was a bit more fluid and children were used to dealing with their own and other's strengths and weaknesses in a positive way.

That's interesting Rafals, thanks for that :)

OP please don't be upset by this. I think top tables are often given independent work. If your DS is not completing as much independent work as the others it makes sense for him to be on a table that might include a little more teacher or TA input. This will help him to learn and then he will probably be moved back up as these things are fluid in my experience. It won't help him to be given work he is not able to do. If anything keeping him on top table is v likely to set him back in his own learning.
My DD was moved down a table and was horrified, she reckoned the tracher just didnt like her but heyho, frankly it made her try harder and work her way back up.
It's not a lifelong judgement of your DS and sometimes brighter children need a wakeup call IMO

Some bright children can also be v lazy or talkative or just a little too selfassured. That's fair enough but won't help the individual long-term. I think this will be good for him as it has clearly brought out his competitive side don't worry, have faithin his teacher

It quite often pops up as a topic on TES primary and there seems to be a variety of strategies.

If I were the OP I'd let the teachers know and see if they can identify where it is coming from. Probably combined with a lot of praise for effort and cutting a back on phrases involving things like 'clever' or 'smart'. I'd come down like a ton of bricks on any use of the word 'stupid' or anything similar to describe other children/people too.

Why didn't you ask the teacher about it?

I teach y6. I use mixed ability in everything except guided reading. We set for English and Maths, but then within my set the children sit mixed. My higher ability children are never given the task of explaining it to their lower ability peers - that's my job, not theirs. We have a range of activities based on how well they are doing that day/topic and I know my children so I know who should be aiming for what piece of work. I don't like the idea that the achievement of those in the lower ability 'group' would be limited by my own restrictions. Ive had some children who would certainly be in that group to have fantastic days and fly through the work. Their confidence and pride when they complete the challenge is of far more value and has a much greater impact on their ability as a mathematician than any benefit of sitting with similarly able peers.

I still do different inputs, still offer different tasks and still offer support to certain groups but they're absolutely not set groups at all and change daily, with the child's own input. I feel it is much more useful for a child to learn to say 'I'm struggling with this, can I have a bit of help, can i come to the support table' and it does a lot less damage to self confidence than being in 'the thick group'.

Research growth mindset vs fixed mindset . A fixed mindset is the idea that intelligence and ability is innate and fixed at a certain level. Growth mindset is the idea that ability is more dependent on effort. Whilst some children will never achieve certain things, with all the effort in the world, they need to beleive they could potentially achieve it in order to remain motivated and not disillusioned with education.

My DD was often teamed with a lower ability child, she found his constant chatter annoying, he would mess about not want to work, she would ask to move, but was told no. She felt she was just baby sitting him. The work ethic is a struggle for some, and lots of kids want to hand hold the whole lesson. It should not be my DD problem.

BetweenTwoLungs You sound like the teacher that we all hope our children get: thoughtful, insightful, articulate, sensitive to each child as an individual.

The ability table thing left my summer born dcs in the bottom table at infant school - not feeling they were very good at anything. As they have matured they have very gradually moved up ability tables, and continue to move up through the sets at secondary, top set for science now . Their confidence builds year on year and they have started to see themselves as more able to achieve - we don't use words like clever and smart, we focus on hard work. Dh was the same, very average achiever at primary but worked hard and made it to Oxbridge.
But for every move up my dcs have taken, another child gets moved down, and places at tables are limited. It's hard to move up, to move up dcs need to be exceeding expectations, which is good but the dcs that move down are failing to meet expectations and Ofsted don't like that at all and I think schools are very reluctant to move a child down a table or a set. I suspect that a child at the top of a lower set is doing better than the child at the bottom of the next set up.

To add on the stupid thing - I allow my dcs to swear - just not in front of me, but I do not allow them to use offensive language which attacks who a person is - I put the word stupid in that category and I'd nip it in the bud immediately.

clararachu what a lovely thing to say! Honestly thank you so much!

That's the other thing about ability groups I don't like. Surely you can't possibly always have 6 highly able children, 6 more a bit lower etc. what happens if your ability groups don't conveniently fit the number of tables?

BetweenTwoLungs et al

There is no-one I admire more than a good teacher

At school I was fairly low ability in most things, I would have found it mortifying and and felt sad, that another peer woukd be teaching me how to do things, they are your peers. I would have felt not good enough or stupid. Thank goodness when I was at school, the teacher always did that.