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 sometimes people confuse IQ and ability/aptitude call it what you like.

Lequeen, you have eloquently stated in your last post all that is wrong with early fixed expectation setting and some teaching that clearly exists in primary school.

"My friends have been teaching primary school for 17 years and they can predict which children willpass the 11+ from reception", or something like that!.

What a great example of why not to set at such an early age!. It shows that a slight suspicion that children were labelled in this way from reception, is actually a reality.

Setting in this way with such a predicted outcome as the statistics stated in LeQueens post is horrifying. To do this at such an early age, when the child has just started to learn is clearly wrong. Unless,of course it is done in such a very fluid manner that the system is able to move children around rapidly and effectively in accordance with the rapid growth of their ability, desire to learn in a formal setting and maturity.

As this is generally not the case in a lot of classrooms, then the damage done by not moving fluidly is too great as opposed to the benefit for the "current brighter" children.

There are talented and gifted programmes in schools within each class that could and should be used to stretch brighter current attainmemt students.

It is interesting how most of the people pro streaming have children in the top stream?

As Cortina has said and mrz and maths anxiety, it is not about differentiation it is about How you differentiate. It should be done with fluidity, sensitivity and by using methods such as talented and gifted.

The heavy blunt instrument that is clearly used in a lot of schools leads to low expectations and low esteem and a self fulfilling prophesy as LeQueen has demonstrated. It is deeply saddening and shocking that some teachers make these judgements and predictions in some Reception Classes. I am sure this is not always the case and there is very good teaching practise out there, but there are a lot of systems that work like the one McQueen describes. In this system it is no wonder that there is no fluidity - the label has been attached by their own teacher and most will apparently stay until 11+ in this type of system

Sorry to inform you LeQueen there is no correlation between IQ and reading ability
In fact there are many, many people with high IQs who are unable to read at a functioning level

Research published by Rorschach in 2007 on using IQ to predict later reading ability demonstrates how children with the same IQ (tested at nursery age) receiving the same education and tested a number of years later for reading ability showed significant differences.

Agreed, Mumgo. Professor Lauren Resnick at the University of Pittsburgh and Harvard's Professor David Perkins believe in learnable intelligence to a degree, they believe that minds are expandable.

I am sure they would be horrified with the outmoded systems and ways of thinking about 'intelligence' that seem still to prevail, not in every school, but I think they do prevail.

Resnick says:

Students who, over an extended period of time are treated as if they are intelligent (in this sense), actually become so. If they are taught demanding content, and are expected to explain and find connections as well as memorize and repeat, they learn more and learn more quickly. They (come to) think of themselves as learners. They are able to bounce back in the term of short term failures.

If they are written off at 4 as a rather dim, no hoper, they are never going to get to this position.

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

Lol Cortina!

"but in the vast majority of cases the IQ is largely hard-wired. "

And thus is one of the main open questions in modern educational theory and psychology answered. All you need now is some evidence and you're good to go.

From what I am reading we are moving away from the belief that minds come with a predetermined and immutable capacity, in other words IQ is fixed.

We must discard this belief in fixed IQ and ability ceilings if we want people to try harder and be interested in learning how to learn. Effort takes on a different meaning if your IQ isn't fixed, it's a pleasurable stretch, you can and will get better. If your belief system doesn't entertain this possibility or your teachers don't believe in it then you are going to switch off pretty quickly as I did when the going gets tough. No point doing sport or even trying with maths, my 'maths' IQ was low, I had reached my limit and the ceiling of my ability.

Now I see things differently I am going to put this right! :)

Claxton, whom again I am quoting from here, asks why the idea that IQ is fixed seems amazingly resilient in the face of all the evidence. If the idea of expandable intelligence, and of education as helping that expansion to happen, is scientifically credible, educationally practical and socially desirable, why does the old idea seem to have so much control over people's minds?

Are you there with the blunt forks, Feenie? So why is the idea of fixed intelligence so robust amongst the reception teachers that LeQueen knows and many others I've come across? Three reasons, one economic, one psychological and one to do with teachers' lives.

You may want to read about brain plasticity

Just had a brief google, thanks mrz.

Read that the structure of your brain ? through training and practice ? and challenging experiences ? means your future can change. Is that the jist?

Another argument not to trust in fixed IQ and dump people in stagnant sets then.

There is so much out there that backs all of this up. There is a vested interest in keeping the old idea alive (that our intellectual limits are set at birth) I fear.

I wish that anyone who has been in my situation would challenge any teacher or scenario that seemed so intransigent. This sort of dinosaur thinking could limit your DC's progress in life.

I don't necessarily think that those Reception teachers would have the idea that intelligence is fixed. It is certainly true that you can 'tell' from Reception some of the children who will do well at 11 years old. But you can't tell all of them, and most teachers make it their life's work to ensure that each child flourishes as much as possible, and watch with pleasure when children do equally well in Year 6, having started at a lower level than the other, more obvious, cases.

That is to say, I don't know any Reception teachers who would say/think 'right, I know who's going to do well and who's not - I shall teach in those little boxes accordingly'. Teaching isn't like that.

I have met a few personally that seem to, Feenie. Usually much older, (approaching retirement age) but don't want to stereotype. Some of the most inspirational primary teachers I've met have also been this age. When I hear comments that appear to back this up - on this thread for example - I get twitchy.

You sound like a wonderful teacher and I sense from all your posts that you are so delighted when a child does well - which ever level their attainment happened to be.

I wonder whether having the graded system has made things worse in some classrooms? Having 'Ws' '1As' level 3s all in year one, we are doing that very human thing of 'grouping' and labelling children together to create order.

Although I would trust in your classroom that no expectations were set in stone and that you would be happy to support any child to fly. I hope that you are representative of most.

Just to add the teachers I know that do make seemingly arbitrary decisions about their high fliers and low achievers early on may not teach like that but they do privately think like that. That's the difference and it's just as damaging IMO.

I have to say I have encountered a few (very few) teachers who teach in boxes and it certainly isn't an attitude limited to older teachers.

All of this reminds me of the philosophies of Shinichi Suzuki, he of the "Suzuki Method" of music education.

Let's for the sake of argument say that IQ is somewhat synonymous with musical talent/ability. Suzuki has seen time and time again, how DC that were perceived has having no ear for music and who showed no aptitude towards playing a musical instrument (mainly the violin), can become world class instrumentalists.

His method is one of nurturing and belief that all have the inherent ability. Through a system of support, encouragement and practice all children improve at their individual pace.

He based his ideas on the fact that the majority of children, with no difficulty whatsoever, master the complexities of their mother tongue at a very early age. They do this, he maintained, through regular exposure in a nurturing environment.

'tis similar to what Cortina et al are postulating - no?

I know you've moved on a bit but I'm really interested in the OP's DS's level 2c; presumably it's his overall literacy level but is it based solely on his ability to understand key words? Because that's not how levelling works at all...

As far as ability setting/ intelligence goes, as teachers we are assessed ourselves on the progress that our students make so it is in our interests not to teach in boxes. For example, my bosses would not be satisfied with me saying "x has remained a 4a this year simply because she is low ability"; that's not a valid reason!

Feral, no it wasn't. Forgive me, I don't make the point very clearly in initial post. If you've time, and are interested :), pls skim through the thread and read my subsequent posts. I'd be interested in your take.

Sorry Cortina, I skimmed through again but I just re-read the bits about word lists, so I guess I wasn't through enough! Can you summarise for me?

Literacy levels should be made up from the three areas of reading, writing and speaking and listening. There are actually twenty (!) different assessment foci against which every student should be assessed over the whole year before they're given an overall level.

The school should be able to show you your son's APP sheets which break down his progress against these three areas if you want to really pinpoint his strengths and weaknesses.

BTW, for anyone interested in the (very jolly) way in which we assess your DCs, the Assessing Pupil Progress sheets for primary schools can be found here

What concerned me was the fact he hadn't been exposed to the knowledge that others had. Seemingly arbitrary decisions, at least in our school, are made about who to 'extend' when many would benefit.

Children seem to be seen as dim, bright or average and broadly deliver as expected. Ability groupings (an area I'm interested in) are quite stagnant. 'Able' children who can't keep up remain in their group despite the fact they can't keep up with the others.

No differentiation is made for literacy or maths in the various groups.

The teacher has been good despite what I am saying but some things and attitudes appear to have been quite fixed. How do you structure your classroom out of interest? Thnks.

I think year one is a bit early to be talking about IQ, it would be end of year 3 at the very earliest and then it would only be reasoning tests.

But - children develop at different rates and I can see how some children would need a bit of extension (or they are unfairly slowed down) and others a bit of help (or they are unfairly demoralised) in the infant school. I know a lot of my colleagues do differentiate the spelling lists etc. not because they are thinking of one child as clever and another as less intelligent but because they want the children all to learn at the rate that is right for them at the time. This often changes radically during the juniors - I've lost count of children who achieved level 1a in Year 2 and then went on to level 5 in year 6.

Strewth ladies - this is year blooming one!

How astute their teacher is in judging ability is a tiny bit of their whole education.

Much more important to have an interested (not paranoid) parent and a secure homelife.