What do you think about this 'system' and would it bother you?

[Cortina]

The facts are these, in our school we have had virtually static ability tables in year one. We have also had the poor behaviour concentrated towards the lower end of the ability table spectrum. The ability tables are all equal groups of 6.

I've come to terms with this and hey, year 2 is another year and a hopefully different system! DS is in the bottom end of the class. He's done well and I am pleased.

I discovered towards the end of this academic year that the various tables/pupils were given words to learn depending on what is was decided they were capable of learning and remembering at the time. Upshot is top table finished all the 'word lists' and perhaps others at tables in the top half of the class. No formal spelling tests but when you receive a word list you also receive an exercise to try at home using those words. With me so far? Top third all moved on to trickier more challenging stuff in the last term. On to Y2 key words plus etc if that's what they are called?

DS had completed about half of the lists by year end and to be honest the words and exercises never presented a problem, he ended the year at level 2C. Great, not a reason to be concerned. I realised that he hadn't covered most of these words though and asked for the words/exercises for us to do at home, no problem. He read all the words to me no problem when I presented all the left over lists to him.

He was on list 3 out of a possible 20 at the end of the year after completing some other alphabetical lists of words/different system that went first. We haven't done much work these holidays so far and the other words he can read perfectly well but hasn't learnt them as yet. The words on list 20 are the months of the year to give you an idea.

So this isn't important at all is it? It's just I fear I see a system here that creates the positive outliers of the future as the top half of the class pull further and further away from others whose potential may be the same or similar?

(A similar scheme operates for maths by the way).

I fear I see a system where teachers and others could subconsciously 'believe' that X must be more capable than Y and this might have negative consequences going forward. I know that I find myself thinking this way, human beings like to label after all, to create order out of disorder etc.

I fear I see a system where the top half of the class are the only ones that believe they are capable of more and have the potential?

I fear that other systems will be operating, like this one, which disadvantage some of the children who are not on the top table/top half of class?

Or are my small concerns all unfounded they are only 5/6 after all! :)

So my question/s are would you just think this was ok and not worry? I feel I 'should' do work with my son this holidays or I will be disadvantaging him due to this system.

I think in my school as well as having the weekly lists, we'd also get tested on previous words at random to see if we'd retained them. :)

whenI was at school we sat in rows alphabeticaly till prm 6 when the group system started.The head teacher was very biased and us kids from woking class families were all in the bottom groups no matter that quite a few were brighter than the kids of the white collar lot.At a class reunoin 20yrs later it was a joy to show him how well we had done depite him,I think a lot of two fingered salutes were given that night.

I don't actually know what "ability group" DS1 is in .

When I was in school (in SE Asia) they made no bones about how "well" you were doing - you got exams every term and the class was ranked by marks. If you ranked 44 out of 45 kids you (and everyone else) knew where you were ...

I spent the early part of my life in mixed ability classes. They were terrible. I spent most of my school life sitting doodling on my desk or initiating a rumpus as I waited for the rest of the class to catch up.

My parents finally got pissed off and moved me to somewhere fiercly academic where we got our class position issued to us twice a term. Kids actually vied to be first which was quite a different experiece.

On first examination streaming might not be thought to be good for the academically less able kids ego's but actually i'm not sure. Surely being given work you can do with teh support to do it is more fulfilling than being given exercises that are too difficult and then watching the bright and bored kids cause a whole pile of class disruption.

My first school had also abolished academic prizes as they were 'too divisive' but retained the music/ sport / hug a granny type prizes. Frankly I found that divisve as I'm shit at Music and Sports so my only hope would have been the maths prize!

I will actively seek a school with ability groupings (but agree that some stuff should be taught mixed) for my kids.

Having said all that though - the static nature of these groups would concern me as would the stability between maths and language. IME not v. many folk are strong at both.

Cortina - there is no question that streaming kids in any way (ie ability tables) for kids under approx 11 is bad for them. Read outliers for a complete discussion of why.

But I don't see what you can do about it? Just hope that his next years teacher is better.

I believe that in the UK summer babies are far less likely to go to Uni than Autumn babies - in Outliers Malcolm Gladwell directly attributes this to early streaming.

He says in Sweden they're not allowed to stream until 11, and there is no bias at uni age by birth month.

Yes, let's all teach to the middle ability children, and sod those above and below.

So how exactly are children who are way ahead or way behind in classes of 30 meant to be taught without streaming?

the same way all children are taught

Well, all of my son's work has 'must', 'should', and 'could' targets on it. So they all get the same work, and they all complete it to a different level. But they're not told what level to complete it to - so they are always able to do 'better than expected'

Differentiation groups are created for the children's sake. I am a primary teacher as well as a mum of Yr2 and YrR children. I can see the benefits of differentiating from both angles. Within a clas of 30, not all the children will have the same level of achievement, and it would be horrible for the child's self-esteem as well as their performance to be asked to deliver as the child next to them does. The same with G&T...if you have a child who you know can perform way above average, you'd want the teacher to be aware of that and push them further. That's the teacher's job: to see individuality and plan for ALL the children. If we didn't have differentiation, the lesson would be planned for an "expected for the age" level of achievement and this would be very detrimental for 80% of our children.

BTW, levels are not given based on only one piece of assessment: it should be an overview of their performance in a certain subjects.

differentiation doesn't mean that children need to be streamed or sat in ability groups.

It doesn't mean they should all receive the same work, either.

In my Year 5 classroom, attainment ranges from level 2 to a high level 5 - when the latter are learning about ratio and proportion, the former are not, and I would have no business trying to teach it to them.

Yes - but do you need streaming to do differentiation? It is streaming that is the problem not differentiation...

And the problem is for the 'late bloomers' as described by the OP. They don't get a fair go, becuase the top group are stretched and so the gap between them and the bottom group grows....

It all appears fair and like a good idea at the time - but the result is that summer babies are penalised all their life.

Almost all professional footballers are Autumn babies for the same reason. When they're being picked for the under Xs where a few months of maturity makes a big difference, the autumn babies get picked ahead of the summer babies. Then by the time they're teenagers and the few months doesn't make a difference anymore the autumn babies have played more games and had better coaching so they now are actually better than the summer children.

some of the most common ways to differentiate teachers shouldn't rely on one method to the exclusion of others

Input differentiation
The pupil or group of pupils are given the input in a small group with differentiated re-sources. This can be done in addition to pre-tutoring; if the need arises.
Task differentiation
Groups of pupils are given a differentiated task that still meets the criteria of the learning intention. Structured handouts may help to break down the task into smaller steps and a mid-point plenary could be used to check everyone is on task.
Resource differentiation
Depending on the pupil?s stage in language development resources could be differentiated to meet their needs i.e. 3D objects, photographs, pictures, clipart or symbols. Magnetic letters and/or key words on pre-cut paper could be used as an alternative means of re-cording for those who struggle with writing. Other methods of recording could also be considered such as mind maps, flow charts or hand-held audio recording devices.
Group differentiation
Depending on the task, matching similar learners together can be effective. Or in some cases pairing a stronger learner with one who needs additional help can also prove beneficial.
Support differentiation
This involves the effective use of additional adults in the room to support individual pupils as well as encourage independence. It is sometimes useful for additional adults to move between groups.
Turn differentiation
Asking questions and going around the class; so as to deliberately ask those with learning difficulties last. This gives those children a chance to hear others and figure out what it is they are required to do.
Outcome differentiation
This level of differentiation involves appropriate expectations being linked to marking/feedback. This approach could be used to support post-tutoring.

Time differention - some children would be expected to complete a task more quickly than others.

Indigobell, it's the static labelling of groups in schools such as Cortinas which makes the system fall down as you describe.

In a normal classroom, every child is encouraged and stretched, regardless of summer/winter birthdays and there is no ceiling on expectation or attainment. Children aren't put in boxes and made to conform to any preconceived ideas of ability. Most teachers delight in children who surprise us and accelerate in progress, and allow that to happen at every opportunity.

Op, I agree with you wholeheartedly after seeing a similar thing happen to DD.

Op, I agree with you wholeheartedly after seeing a similar thing happen to DD.

No they don't, Feenie.

Too many teachers just see their job as getting the middle bunch of kids to middling standards, and ignoring the rest.

It's a kind of perverse Marxism that kicks in, where education is rationed and seen as finite, and dealing with the top and bottom 10% properly is seen as a drain on resources.

It does my head in.

BTW my DS2 is in the bottom group for everything, knows this is the case, assumes there's no likelihood of ever moving groups and does a lot of his real scholastic stuff at home on his own or with me. And that's a rather better school than many locally.

Yes, but not the vast majority.

I have to say, BoffinMum, I disagree. I, (and all the other teachers in my school) agreed on targets for specific children across the spectrum, depending on how much progress they were making, so child was allowed to remain static.
Some would say that the middle achievers get the least amount of attention - the top need stretching, the bottom need support. Although, obviously, ideally the teacher is spreading themselves around, so all groups are supported equally. It is one of the more painful aspects of the job for me - I often worry that I am giving everyone equal amounts of attention / balanced with encouraging independence.

I disagree as well. DS has specific learning difficulties but is probably top 5% for intelligence. He was given a lot of extra help in primary because he was obviously bright and they wanted him to meet his potential. On paper he is a late bloomer and now in year 9 he is considered one of the high fliers at secondary.
But I suspect what most people consider late bloomers are children that were always very intelligent, it's just what they are good at is not recordible in primary.