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.

Feenie, oh well, I daren't answer your links post, I think that will only amuse you as well

"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"

The teacher concentrates on delivering teaching to children at the exact level they are, so that they make the most amount of progress that they possibly can, claig. We don't ignore where the children are, and concentrate on teaching a curriculum, regardless of who gets it and who doesn't. That's terrible practice.

"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"
But, claig, what would be the point of teaching quadratic equations to a child who was not secure in place value, or basic calculations? They would not have the basic knowledge in place to even come anywhere near understanding quadratic equations, and you would also have missed the opportunity to teach them something which would allow them to progress in their mathematical understanding.

I am not against having high expectations - all teachers worth their salt believe in this. But to teach children about something which is way beyond their understanding is something entirely different, and does children a terrible disservice.

Feenie, I see what you are saying it justs seems to me that trying to apply a personalized type learning program to 30 pupils in a class in one lesson is very difficult and very time-consuming, and will probably slow down delivering a curriculum.

But, as you say, teaching a curriculum, regardless of who gets it, is terrible practice. That was the practice in my schooldays, which is maybe why I sympathize with those objectives, even though I recognize their shortcomings. I thought that with the modern use of TAs and one-to-one tuition some of these shortcomings could possibly be rectified.

I am glad that the modern way works better.

"Feenie, I see what you are saying it justs seems to me that trying to apply a personalized type learning program to 30 pupils in a class in one lesson is very difficult and very time-consuming, and will probably slow down delivering a curriculum."
Honestly, it isn't, it isn't and it doesn't! Are you anywhere near Leeds? I'd like to invite you in a for a morning to reassure you if so. [smile}

Feenie, thanks for the invite. I am in Essex, but if I am ever up that way, I would love to visit

I really wouldn't worry about it and he is very young-it can all change.
My DS1 was in the lower maths set all through primary school-he was slow to get a new concept. He came out as 3rd in the class in a maths test in yr 6 and they still wanted to keep him in the lower group. He started secondary in the 3rd Maths group, quickly got into the 2nd, and although he was out performing many of the top maths group they wanted to keep him there. Eventually they had to have him in the top group and he got A at A'level-I think that he benefited from the slower pace and getting a solid grounding.
My brother failed the 11+, passed at 12 and at 13 was put in the express stream for high flyers!
Being able to say 'my DC is in the top group', doesn't matter-it is what they do in the lower groups that matters.

Just jumping in here to explain what I meant!

We were talking about marking in another [post and I was explaining how we marked against the lesson's objective AND a child's personal target. So, in a lesson with the objective ' to use describing words' I would mark the describing words AND give a target tick if the child has achieved his/her personal target (e.g. to use capital letters and full stops). I would be able to tell you easily what the literacy target is for each of my 26 children - it's not rocket science.

On the previous thread, I didn't mention ability groups. I think ability groups are very important in reading (although mine are fluid and change every 6 weeks or so - Y2). They are also important in maths. However, these should be fluid as well. For instance, the 'ability' group for 'adding tens and units' may be different to the 'ability' group for 'doubling' - it's just what the particular children understand at the time. Of course, you find there is an overlap of children who don't understand, and the teacher recognises these children as those who need extra support.

Writing ability groups...hmmm.

You talk lots of sense, imho, EB.

Hey EB I agree with you, on just about every point. I do have writing attainment groups though(Y1) because I think things like apostrophes should be taught to those who are ready for them.

I do lots of guided writing in groups modeling use of full stops to one group, sounding through cvc to another, adding interest with connectives to a third etc

However, all my foundation subjects are taught to the whole class and the children sit in mixed ability groups for the writing/discussion etc that goes on there. I think it would be a disaster for language acquisition if children sat in literacy based 'ability' groups all the time.

And, like you, I mark to the objective and to the personal target. I would hope that was pretty standard practice now?

Claig, from what I remember of speaking to teachers 30 years ago- it was not the case that the entire nation was taught exactly the same. Schools were streamed and it is a well reported fact that teachers often totally gave up on teaching the lower streams anything. I remember a teacher friends telling my father that her set were too dim to learn her subject so she talked to them of her holidays abroad instead. These days, no teacher is allowed to conclude that a student is too dim to learn a subject: they have to find a way of teaching a subject that can be grasped by that particular child. I expect it is much harder work for the teacher. But fairer on the pupil wouldn't you say? Isn't it better to learn a little, than to learn nothing?

And surely, even 30 years ago, a class construing the Bello Gallico would hardly have been a representative cross section of the population. How many pupils with SN would there have been in that class? How many pupils whose parents were illiterate? The likelihood is the differences were so small that you would probably have ended up in the same set anyway.

Angrypixie - I actually pressed my enter key when I was hmming about writing groups (and by that time I was on a crucial glass of wine....)

Yes, I agree. Small ability groups for those that need the extension - that was what I intended to follow my hmmmm

Cory, I agree that there is a need for some sort of streaming/setting/ability differentiation if the gap between pupils is very large. But in general, I think I am in favour of trying to avoid it if possible, and am more in favour of a whole class teaching approach. This is because I think that everybody should have access to the same level of teaching in order to be able to reach the same minimum level required by the curriculum. Also, I think that splitting a teacher's time between different groups within a class may be much more difficult for a teacher to do and will possibly harm the progress of the class as a whole. In our class at school, there was a wide spectrum of abilities with some children getting 30% in tests and others getting 80%, but there was no streaming at our school.

I am not saying that streaming etc. is wrong, because I realize that it is a complicated problem and there is no easy correct solution to ensure that children are getting the most effective education.

I agree that it is better to learn a little than to learn nothing, but I am not sure that it is so black and white. I have browsed the net and found a fascinating research article which lends supports to the whole class approach as used in Switzerland, Germany and Japan, and suggests that children may even do better in a whole class approach as opposed to a differentiation scheme.
www.ttrb.ac.uk/attachments/3e6f49f1-cea6-4dcf-a21a-cf99c4ca6df9.pdf

I would love to see Saturday or Sunday classes at schools, where willing teachers could be rewarded with overtime rates something like 3 times their normal rate of pay, where children who are struggling to keep up could receive booster lessons. Rather than parents having to use expensive private tutors, teachers should receive the rewards from government funds. The benefits to the nation with the increase in standards would make the cost minimal over the long run.

I like you EasterBunny, and not only because you bring chocolate

claig there are some Saturday schools where I live - inner city London. Free to kids, primary I think have to nominate them as pupils who would benefit. They're taught by teachers at the secondary schools. They're used as a bridge between the two to help kids prepare for change to secondary and I think short term, so maybe 6 x Saturday morning sessions or something. Not sure what the deal for the teachers is in terms of pay, but it is happening.

smee, great scheme, didn't know they did that, very good councils to provide that