Children and their targets

[Cortina]

Saw this comment from Easter Bunny and it prompted me to write this post about something which concerns me:

The teacher determines the individual target as s/he knows what the child needs to do - it is part of personalised learning. We DO know the children!!!

Want to add that Easter Bunny seems to be like a passionate and committed teacher who is smart enough to know the children in her care very well.

What if a teacher doesn't 'know' the children? What happens if a teacher misjudges a child's true 'ability'? Some teachers I've found create an atmosphere of judging. Teachers that judge talent rather than teach. The teachers look at the students beginning performance and decide who's smart and whose not so smart and this opinion rarely changes.

So are there any consequences of 'personalised learning' goes wrong? I'll give you my situation as an example. Perhaps my fears are for nothing? Would be relieved to have my worries and doubts put to rest.

My son came into year one after having missed quite a bit of his reception year due to illness and other reasons that I don't want to go into publically. He's also young for his year.

The signs are he's reasonably bright, compared to siblings and from what I have observed. He learns quickly.

The children are split into 5 ability groups, there's quite a range of ability in year one. He's in the lowest group currently. The children are not supposed to know about this but they all do and their seems to be 'ambition' to want to get to the next level for want of a better description. Maybe this isn't a bad thing?

The children at each table have different work given to them. The distinction is made not on an individual but table basis. The top table are already a long way ahead of the bottom table. My son is catching up and has made good progress. There is a gulf between the work the bottom table and top table do currently. The top 3 tables have extra homework etc the others do not. Children do move between the tables but usually there are only a handful that do move in the course of the year.

When the teacher gives predicted KS1 grades or assesses which level a child is at the 'system' means that a smart child on a lower ability table might be discriminated against? In the teacher's head the 'A's' and 'B's are 'smarter' than the rest?

Come year 2 it will be very hard for any child on the bottom table to get the same results in KS1 as a child on the top table. Or am I missing something?

A teacher would 'expect' children at tables A and B to 'score' higher than those sitting at C,D and E? They also wouldn't be able to really as they may not have covered the work in the same depth?

My son told me that he couldn't do certain work the other night because he was not 'allowed' as he sits at table E. Only table A can move on to that stage in Maths apparently.

The teacher is very approachable so will be in for a chat but wondered what happens in other schools? I think this is potentially a dangerous approach as it leads to a (subconcious)? labelling of children's abilities and surely may mean some don't reach their academic potential in their whole school career?

Just to add I think a teacher has a real gift if they can get a child to reach it's academic potential, to challenge as well as nurture. It has to be one of the toughest and under-rewarded jobs in the world.

Certainly alot has changed in my sons class since they were in year 1 . now year 5. Children who were on the bottom table for maths in year 1 are in top set now but not all. There are still some who are in the lowest group. Most of those who have moved up were those you looked at and thought they were smart. One boy had an encyclopedic knowledge of the latest film he had seen.Same goes for reading. Kids who just hadnt got of the mark in year 1 are in the top group for guided reading now and read anything. There wasnt such a leapt from year 1 to 2. It was the ones on the top tables in year 1 who got level 3's in the year 2 sats. I think at our school and this is just my opinion. In year2 the identify those that might get a 3 and put them on the top tables. The rest work towards getting a solid 2. In year 3 alot of emphasis went on the lower tables to get them up to the level3.So they were more even and there was alot of change in year3 DS1 had a lot of onput in year3 where as DS2 got it in year 2. Other parents observed the same pattern. I have also heard the age bias evens out at about age 8
So dont worry yet but do keep on top of it. And Practice reading and number bonds at home +++

Of course they can move up.

My dd missed most of Reception (she is the youngest in the year, couldn't cope, just went part-time until last few weeks).

In the first term of Year 1 she could barely read. She was looking at the picture books with the "Blue" group or whatever the bottom group was called.

Fast forward to Year 2 and it's the other extreme. Dd has to be set different work from anyone else and has some special learning plan or other. (Not that this pleases me - she's not a genius but her year group is not a particularly high achieving one.)

Anyway, the teacher will soon spot if a child is whizzing through the maths/literacy tasks and move them to work with children of a similar standard. In the infants the children's ages make a huge difference and as time goes on many of the tortoises outstrip those pesky hares.

Interesting replies, thanks.

I know it sounds a bit premature to get concerned but potential 'labelling' concerns me, especially negative labelling.

Mary21 you said:

It was the ones on the top tables in year 1 who got level 3's in the year 2 sats.

You see, this worries me. I predict something similar in DS's school. I see 'potential' for 3s in other children on 'lower' tables.

It suggests that there isn't that much movement between tables such as at DS's school. Surely year 2 is a long time off? Things should and can change a lot by then. The boy at the 'bottom' table can surely move to the top? And if not, why not if he 'improves'?

Isn't there some statistic that says those that get 2s in KS1 go on to get a certain grade at the next Key Stage? Thus a labelling and ability judging process has begun?

How many children change tables in the course of year one? Also do any of them move down an ability grouping.

I'd like to see children being taught more individually rather than in these broad ability groups (appreciate probably not possible in practice).

Gramercy - how did your child progress in year one? How quickly did she move up through the ability groupings? Was she an exception? Was there lots of fluidity between the groups? Thanks.

If there isn't movement between tables at your school, then there should be. Both my dcs changed tables in infants school, dd several times, and at least on one occasion halfway through the year.

Cory - how much movement would you say there was generally? In our school the trend seems to be one or possibly two move every term.

Why do you think there should be movement?

Lots of the children who were on the top tables in year1 are in middle sets now. None have gone all the way to bottom. DS1 got 2 for science in year 2 and 5 in year 6 2b in maths then 4a, 2c writing 2b reading. 4b in year 6. I wouldnt worry to much about getting a 3 in year2. lots who did got level 2's at the start on year3 . one child arrived in DS2's class in year 3 with no english and no previous schooling. Came from a country where you start school at 7. now 2 and a bit years on is in top sets for everything!

That's encouraging, thanks.

In our school they are not ability groups, which does suggest that's all you're capable of, but attainment groups, grouping based on your current level of understanding.

This may seem pedantic but it is v important to us that our teachers see the distinction. The groupings are different for general literacy, reading and numeracy.

The groups are very fluid and changes happen throughout the year with major movement happening at half terms. Movement also happens for specific maths topics eg you might have a child who is brilliant at calculation but has no experience of telling the time so s/he will need to work with a different group for 'time'

We also encourage teachers to create differentiated tasks at the end of each specific topic, explain each task to the children and allow them to choose which one they want to tackle, this tells you a great deal about a child's level of understanding and confidence in a topic and may well prompt a group change.

I don't know to what extent our parents are aware of all of this, so it may be that your school is v similar and you are worrying unnecessarily. Hopefully a chat with the teacher will clarify things.

Cortina, I'd say one movement per term (if you mean same child moved once) is quite sufficient. Or if you're talking the no of children moved- well, seeing that classes only consist of 30 children and there are 3 terms, 1 or 2 children is probably about a realistic representation of how many children actually do show themselves to belong in a different group. You don't want a situation where children are constantly shunted backwards and forwards either, as every move means they have to start in a slightly new place.

And I am not talking about sets, but about ability tables, which only apply to a very small part of the school day, and are different for different subjects (ds is on a higher table in maths than literacy).

"My son told me that he couldn't do certain work the other night because he was not 'allowed' as he sits at table E. Only table A can move on to that stage in Maths apparently."

I think you are right to be concerned about this. The benefits of this type of approach are not clear cut, and many Asian countries, who use a whole class teaching approach, achieve better results. Some research indicating that the setting type approach does not have clear cut benefits is given on the National Literacy Trust's website
www.literacytrust.org.uk/Research/stream.html

There is a danger that children on table E may come to believe that they are not as capable as those on table A, and may end up comfortable at their current level.

So much of children's success depends on how they perceive themselves and on what expectations are placed on them. There is no easy solution, but I would tend to prefer a more whole class approach where they all drink from the same source, and where remedial classes could be used to help those who are falling behind.

Claig I agree that there's no perfect system, but in a year 1 class with 3 or 4 children independently reading Roald Dahl and 5 or 6 children not yet confident with all their single letter sounds what would you be teaching to the whole class?

Not a criticism, genuine interest.

We've been here before - and the links you provide actually support grouping by ability within classes, claig - but not streaming/setting of classes.

Grouping by ability within the class describes the situation the op talks about.

Setting/streaming of classes refers to a school with multiple classes, say 3 classes of year 1s, who are then streamed by ability and taught in a top class, middle class, bottom class.

I am in favour of teachers setting individual targets.

This year for the first time, DS2's targets have been glued by the teacher on the first page of his homework book and it has really motivated him to work on them (was lazy more than really struggling). He does now start his home work (usually a dozen sentences with words thwe need to leard to spell) saying and so on, a target a a time. And magically, by the end of term he had moved up a table. I do love my DS but was never able to motivate it this much. I could kiss the teacher!

Claig, the opposite hapened to DS, he was deapointed to be at a "low" table but realised that he could change things by puting more effort into his work. I do realise though that all children are different and for the ones with low self estime who really struggle a lot the response might be totally different.

I grew up in Switzerland and the whole class approach was the norm (no idea if it still is the case now). I was very fortunate to love school and have good marks because it was pretty much "swimm or sink" the teachers were happy to carry one the programm when the top ones had mastered it , there was no help whatsoever for those who would have done really well too if only they had been given a bit more time and attention. We did not have TA either who could have maybe concentraed on them. Not sure it was the best system all in all.

AngryPixie, I think you are right for that age group, I was really thinking more about an older age group for maths, where I think they should all have access to the same instruction

Op, most schools and teachers commonly use the ability group approach, but the groups are always fairly fluid. No caps are placed on children's progress, and I don't know any teacher who is not delighted when a child makes more -and hopefully much more - than expected progress.

Expected progress is there not to put a ceiling on children's progress, for the opposite reason - to ensure children don't fall behind - and that if they do, it is spotted quickly and measures are put in place to support the child.

"I was really thinking more about an older age group for maths, where I think they should all have access to the same instruction"

Claig - in an older class the ability range in a class would usually be even greater, commonly stretching from P levels right up to level 5. Can you tell me why a child on P levels wh may be struggling to learn numbers to 10, should work at the same 'instruction' as a child who is learning place value to 7 digits?

When we studied Latin at school, we all had to read Ceasar's account of his campaigns in Gaul. Some were better at Latin than others, but we did not read different texts. The teacher knew what the expected standard was and we had to try to meet it. If the teacher had to provide different texts for everybody's current level then this would probably have wasted too much of the teacher's time and would have slowed down the progress of the entire class.
We didn't have any remedial classes in those days, but I think the Labour's idea about one-to-ome tuition for pupils who are falling behind is a great idea, maybe they could expand this even further.

Once dd could read, she moved from bottom to the next one, and then straight onto the 'top' table. Of course it's not called that, it's the name of an animal.

Dd's friends are all July and August-born, and they are all now in the middle groups. I know that two children who have September birthdays have moved down into middle sets too.

The reason I know this is because dd's friend's mother helps out (spies) one afternoon a week prompted by the fact that she was concerned about these groupings and worried that her dd was condemned to the bottom group for life. She was much reassured after seeing what actually goes on.

*Caesar's

But Claig, it means then that only the more able pupils will get somewhere because the other one will read Ceasar's account of his campain in Gaul but will not get much from it. Having levels means (IMHO) that the best ones can carry on being the best and o at a fster pace while the other will go maybe a bit slower but benefit from what they are learning. THe groupes are not set in stones and there is opportunuties for someone to move up.
In my days, ""The teacher knew what the expected standard was and we had to try to meet it."" too but it meant that the ones falling below the standard would repeat the year and get theur self estime knocked down much more severely than if they had been in a lower group on one particular suject.

gorionine, I see what you are saying and agree with much of it, but what worries me is that the slower pupils will end up not even being taught certain topics, and I think that this will in the long run harm them more than the damage to their self esteem if they do not initially grasp it. If they are lucky enough to move up levels they may find that they have too much to catch up on and not enough time to do it.
On the whole I don't believe that the slower ones are less capable, I think they are just slower and need things explained in different ways, but I would like them to have all of the opportunities that the children in the top levels get.

Is there reason why you have chosen to ignore my perfectly valid questions, claig?

Feenie, I was answering your question but using Latin as an example instead of maths. Let me think and see if I can answer it in terms of maths.

I also answered your links post!

I am amused that you think your Latin example answers my question regarding differentiation.

Feenie, I assume that the maths curriculum has been devised by experts who feel that certain topics need to be covered at certain ages, in order to be able to reach an accepted standard in maths, say. Therefore, the teacher knows what topics to cover at various stages. The teacher hasn't got time to do everything and therefore has to concentrate on delivering the curriculum. Some pupils may be on P levels when the curriculum assumes they should be on place value to 7 places, say. If the teacher diverts her attention to the P level children then this will slow down the progress of the rest of the class who have to cover the accepted curriculum. The P level children need help fast, and if they cannot cope with the expected curriculum then they need remedial classes or possibly need to go back and repeat a previous year, as students do in the States. It seems to me that the only alternatives are to divert the teacher from the curriculum which will harm the rest of the class or to use TAs etc. to help the P level children, which means extra cost.

The P level children are probably an extreme example. There are many children who might muck around in class and not pay full attention, who may end up on lower level tables. These kids may be bright but are just not applying themselves. I worry that these kids may be then be taught an easier level of maths to the children on the higher tables, and may not be able to make up this gap when they stop mucking about. I would rather that they were taught about quadratic equations even if they only get a E grade, rather than being taught something more simple where they achieve a B grade, which might boost their self esteem but harm their
academic development in the long run.