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.

"In a good mixed ability class all children should receive equal attention."

The key word is good. I experienced good mixed-ability teaching in its heyday in a 1970s comp, and bloody awful mixed ability teaching. My parents, teachers both, reckon that the problem with mixed ability is that good teachers enjoy it and get very good results, to the assumption was made that every teacher can do it, whereas it may be (I don't think there's much research) that more teachers are capable of teaching narrowly-banded groups well than full mixed-ability (and, of course, mixed ability in the 1970s didn't span quite the range it does now, with more inclusion for pupils who would have been dismissed as ESN(M) and excluded from mainstream).

I think it's easier to teach ability grouped classes and very easy for a few teachers to ignore some children

mrz I was v interested in your comment about some children being creamed off and extended, can you elaborate? (You'd said it happened in response to a comment I made).

In our school it almost seems an arbitrary decision was made about those whose reading should be extended for example. In Y1 a group were chosen to go into Y2 for their 'reading'. My view is that DS and others would have benefitted from a similar scheme and have been brought on in a similar way.

A few month ago I caught up with an ex colleague and during the conversation he was "boasting" about how good his new school is and what an easy time he was having. He explained that he only taught the top children - 7 children for literacy and 9 for maths out of his class of 29 while two other staff taught the other ability groups. Now as he is a senior member of staff and a lead teacher for maths so I believe he should be the one working with "strugglers" (at least in maths) if the school has to work in this way.

Thanks. Reminds me of my secondary school where the best teachers/resources were allocated to the top sets. They were concerned about turning Cs into Bs and Bs into As I think. The top sets had fierce, uber maths professor types with huge passion for the subject.

In a lower maths set I had a PE teacher with a computer science qualification teach me. Looking back he didn't even seem to be really familiar with the curriculum?

In another year I had a domestic science teacher teach me maths. She used to bring in cakes rather a lot as I recall. Yummy but not overly helpful as far as I recall :).

Out of interest in your colleague's new school who are the other two teachers? A TA and another teacher?

A GTP sudent and a NQT from what I understood

That's not good at all Mrz! I'll be starting my new school in September as a member of senior management and leader for assessment and intervention (Inclusion). I will also be teaching Year 6 and for Literacy and Maths I'll be teaching all those children that really need a push, the next set up will be taught by a Maths specialist and the top set who are progressing well anyway, will be taught by somebody, who is a good teacher but not as experienced as the rest of us. This should hopefully raise results, the same is happening further down with a struggling set of Year 3's, who will be taught by the Deputy Head who has a masters in teaching and learning.

I think maybe schools are moving much more into supporting those less able now. I know with the introduction of pupil progress meetings where teachers are constantly being asked 'Why aren't ... group making progress?' I think it is beginning to tip the other way. I had a disagreement with a Mum last year who said to me 'My daughter is in the top group and some days she said you don't work at her table' to which I said 'Of course I can't work with her everyday, she needs to be independent at the level she is at, so she rarely needs me, she's already progressed 3 sub levels into a 5B, by working with her it can actually slow down the progress as she becomes reliant on teacher support'

Havn't read the whole thread- so sorry if out of context- but why do children who are progressing well deserve less attention and expertise than those that struggle. Surely we should be pushing all children to their maximum potential, not bringing the bottom up to the middle and the middle to the top and maintaining the top at that level- if all children are stetched you can't avoid the ability spread!

My DCs went through a system where there was no physical differentiation in the classroom, just an unofficial keeping of tabs by the teachers. Those who were in the 'way ahead of the rest' category, or finished the general classwork fast were able to use a 'never-finished-work' folder they all kept in their desks where they could pick an activity sheet and work on it quietly on their own and hand it in along with their assigned work. They were never seated with children of a similar ability level until age 12 or so.

I loved it, as they could all entertain the secret hope that they would all succeed brilliantly in school. By the time limited ability grouping was instituted at about age 12 their egos could handle the fact that maths or whatever wasn't their strong hand. How children feel about their performance and prospects is important, and children tend to work to the level that is expected of them. If they think they should be achieving comparable results to those of the class genius, they will generally try.

I always felt that they all got lots of attention from the teachers they had, and different assignments were set to approach the lessons being imparted, sometimes group projects, sometimes artwork, sometimes writing, so the hidden talents of some children who might not have been able to shine in straightforward learn it and write it down at test time format were challenged.

I've only read the first page, I'll go back to read the rest in a minute, but my DS2 has just finished Y1, going into Y2 in September, he doesn't get 'word lists' from school, and was 'average for Y1' so his report claims, and would have no problem reading the months of the year etc despite never having been given a page of them to 'learn'. He still has problems with words like laugh and tough and light, he is in the process of learning those groups of sounds, but apart from that, could read almost anything presented to him? And having had one of my children working 'significantly above average' for his year group, it's not 'creaming off' the 'more able children', it's giving them work that's appropriate for their capabilities. I wouldn't want my 6.5yo who is working at a normal Y1/2 lvl being given the same work my very able child was whern HE was in Y1/2, because it would demoralise him, and he would be unable to do the work. However, my 'able' son would have been bore rigid with the work my 'average' son is doing, as he was reading Roald Dahl books by the end of Reception. Each child is different, and I applaud your dc's school, Cortina, for recognising this.

But Cortina - I have had one child very behind for their age (a spring-born DD who was still working below Lvl 2 in Y6), A VERY above average child (an early summer-born DS who at the end of Y3 is working on Y5-6 work in Maths, English AND science), and a totally average child (an autumn-born DS) who is working on Lvl 1a/2c (at the end of Y1) depending on the subject. If there was no setting in their primary school, my DD would have sat there for most of the juniors being TOTALLY unable to do any of the work that was being set, my above average DS1 would be bored rigid by now and causing all manner of hell for the teacher, and disrupting other childrens' learning. The only child that would be OK would be my DS2. The way you are proposing, anyway. Sorry but after 3 dc that all work to different ability lvls, streaming is essential. Maybe your ds will be a late bloomer, being in a lower ability table at school wont prevent him from doing well in the 11+ or his Y6 sats. Then again, maybe he wont. Not everyone is MEANT to be a brain surgeon.

While I can understand what you are saying about the lack of movement, the fact that one or two dc have moved shows that there is movement. Maybe the teacher was 1) Correct in her assessment of each childs' current lvl of work, and 2) Is still differentiating between the different dc within each group, thus eliminating any real need for movement?

I can see what you are saying loudlass. I am not saying that streaming is always bad, IMO ideally it isn't there and classes are small enough for the curriculum to be rolled out individually to each child as it is at some private schools. Individual strengths and weaknesses are identified and children extended and weaknesses reinforced where appropriate. Some teachers on Mumsnet that have posted here have fluid 'systems' that seem to work well even in larger class environments.

My original point wasn't that streaming should be done away with completely. My point was that some children are not exposed to all the knowledge that others are, and at the end of the year have no chance of catching up. I mentioned word lists as a small example but there are many others that add up to a greater whole.

If streaming and setting exists it should be very fluid but often isn't. Some one here have made some excellent points about the pitfalls of stagnant ability groupings (it may become almost impossible for a late developer to fly up to the top table from the bottom table after a while. Sure, the odd one or two may make it over time but it will be an unusual child).

You talk about you 'average' DS1 and this is what I see as one of the potential problems. Setting can mean we begin to label even very young children. It's human nature to do so, I know I do it. I feel almost compelled to see the children at the top table as brighter than others, the ones in the middle as average and the bottom table children as below average - thats our system. In truth in year one it simply isn't true. I fear it may become the truth though for lots of reasons, certainly it did in my primary and secondary school long ago.

When one of the children at the top table began to find the going tough earlier this year, they were not moved down as considered 'bright' enough to remain just encouraged to speed up a bit. DS's cousin so I have a bit of insider information on this one. It's that sort of attitude which can be damaging. There should be no problem with moving a child up or down, nothing should be set in stone and no stigma attached either way.

Just to add I am sure you don't really see your son literally as 'average' but just using it to illustrate my example.

We have ability groupings whereby literacy/numeracy are not differentiated. My son's report shows that he's at a similar level in both. He's working to the level of his table as most of the children seem to be, whichever table they sit at. This struck me as curious. He is delivering exactly what is expected of him. He is a 'tiger' who isn't quite as clever as a 'zebra' but not as slow as a 'horse'. This is the view the children have of themselves, it's a rare horse that becomes a zebra! :)

I will always keep an eye on things and am sure DS will be ok going forward but I can see the potential damage that this sort of system can cause. It can cause children not to 'believe' and that is the most potentially damaging thing of all.

Loudlass it's interesting hearing from the teachers on there, I assumed 1 or 2 movements a year was fairly standard but they have a flexible system where far more are moved. I think someone said as many as 50% will change groupings over the year.

Mean hearing from teachers on here :)

Loudlass not streaming doesn't mean not challenging or supporting children it means working in a way that meets EVERY child's needs.

Absolutely, couldn't agree more.

I agree about the self fulfilling prophecy aspect of streaming that happens too early. Children are very impressionable and they are inclined to believe there's a message behind ability grouping or labeling, because they are also quite self absorbed and think most aspects of their lives are primarily about them, right there in that moment.

If you have a truly bright child, there's probably no teacher in the world, certainly none in the average classroom of maybe 20 children, who will be able to give that bright child everything he or she needs, academically.

It's been my experience that parents must make up for any deficiencies of the classroom (and none are perfect) in order to ensure the best possible outcome for their individual children.

'I don't think it at all helpful for very bright children to be partnered with slower children. The brighter children can become bored and frustrated, and the slower children will feel inadequate and self concious.'

I agree with this, but I would also add that I suspect the high ability child becomes accustomed to that role/identity. If not challenged adequately, they often don't know how to react if/when something eventually doesn't come easily to them. When they are consistently doing work well 'below' their ability and (of course) excelling, it rocks their confidence and identity when they don't grasp a concept straight away, or don't know the correct answer immediately.

If challenged insufficiently, they can have perfectionist tendencies and unrealistic expectations of themselves/their abilities. They don't learn to persevere, work hard, and have little ability to cope with a situation where they struggle. Failure is potentially devastating instead of an important life lesson.

It is all a fine balance, I think.

Earlybird, I think you have a point there. A parent has a role in trying to keep academic performance separate from the child's sense of specialness though.

Praising effort and discussing thought processes as opposed to results is one way to ensure that a very bright child can be made to understand that it's effort and learning to learn that school is for, not bolstering the ego. Another thing parents can do is encourage a child who is very able academically to try other pursuits outside of school like sports, and of course another good way to keep a child grounded is to set chores and emphasise teamwork around the house.

Earlybird you are spot on and this is why they say it can be can be dangerous to praise 'intelligence' - 'you are so clever' should be replaced with 'that's very interesting work you are doing there, you've stayed on task, that's great' or similar. Praising the effort.

I mentioned 'imposter syndrome' earlier in the thread which women apparently are especially prone to. Self-doubt 'I am out of my depth, I've reached my limit, I am not really 'good enough' or clever enough to be a Barrister', what if someone finds me out? And so on. Apparently this can stem from lots of early praising of 'cleverness'.

The danger is you may believe your cleverness is fradulent, you run the risk of being unmasked. You've fooled them all into thinking you are clever. You may keep having to prove yourself if you believe in fixed ability and are more likely to be anxious and competitive as a result. There was a survey done by Kumar and Jagacinski which said that believers in fixed ability were most likely to disagree with the statement: 'I do my work because I like to learn new things'. All the fun of learning can go out of the window.

LeQueen I think it's dangerous to start thinking that some children are more intelligent then others, especially at this very early stage. Ability has no fixed ceiling. I think rigid early streaming can mean children may begin to get some very fixed ideas about what they are and aren't capable of achieving, my son sees himself as 'tiger' not as clever as 'zebra' but not as slow as a 'horse'. :) I mentioned the example in the classroom where a child isn't going to leave the top group because although they are not able to keep up with the work they are apparently recognised as inherently 'bright' and so merit a place there.

There is that oft quoted study where various classes were given an IQ test and the names of the two top performing students were fed back to their teachers.

Except they fed back two names at random rather that the two highest scorers in the IQ test. Guess what happened? These two children had made the most progress in their studies in every instance.

Le Queen you mention sportiness. My very sporty school caused me to doubt I had any sporting ability. I was not likely to make the team after all. Co-ordination, I lack it, you name it I thought I couldn't do it.

Could have condemned me to a lifetime of a couch potato, I felt embarrassed you see about even trying, what's the point? I had no ability. It's only recently I've realised you know what? I probably could learn to play a decent game of tennis. You know what? With training I could run the London marathon and so on.

I may never be Sally Gunnell or Serena Williams but hey, I might not be THAT athletically shabby after all :)

I think we broadly agree though Le Queen from what you say in later posts.

I think it's great we are discussing this. It seems like such a small thing but I believe it's important to challenge and question anything that looks like a fairly stagnant 'ability' grouping for all these reasons and more.

And agree that no system is perfect and it's up to us as parents to keep an eye of things of course.

LeQueen I was completely with you until recently. There's been a lot of research recently about the subject and I've commented on it on a lot on here probably boring people rigid and to tears about it all :).

The point is not to become too fixated about IQ. I am not saying everyone is suited to becoming an academic and can and should pursue this path.

I am not saying there are not genetic differences in IQ, but the most important thing is that everyone has a wide envelope of variation around that 'base point' that depends on experience, encouragement and self-belief.

Carol Dweck and Claxton (who I am paraphrasing a bit here) have shown that what one child is capable of learning most others are, albeit perhaps at a slower pace. Claig would agree with this I think with her experience with 11 plus students.

It's in part the belief that IQ is hard wired that has caused our school to set so rigidly so early on. Yes, for a general 'sump' of IQ that will be the same for both literacy and maths so no distinction is made. Let's give the best teachers the top set scenarios etc such as Mrz describes in the primary school she/he knows. Let's not move the 'bright' child down from the top set as they 'deserve' a place there even though they can't keep up with the others, etc.

I shudder to my core when I see primary school teachers with these belief systems. They go back to ancient times, to 1938 in fact and the Spens Report:

Intellectual development appears to progress as if it were governed by a single central factor, usually known as 'general intelligence'..It's possible at a very early age to predict with accuracy the ultimate level of a child's intellectual powers'

Intelligence isn't unitary it is the sum of all of your habits of mind. The habits of mind are many and various and most of them can be cultivated.

Once we put these old ideas about intelligence to bed teachers can concentrate on the attitudes of mind that are capable of being strengthened and look for the best ways of stretching and exercising them. Rigid ability setting in Y1 not being one of them

The best way I believe is to roll the curriculum out to the individual child rather than stream them, especially so early on. Not always practical I know.

I would go on but Feenie will be reaching for the blunt forks to remove her eyes. :)