Do educators assume that 'ability' in the class room follows an approximate bell sized distribution? Within the classroom there will roughly three groups of children the below average, average and above average.?
The average around which ability groups are based being approximately the middle of the class. NC targets are then set for each group depending on whether the group is above average, average or below average?
In a literacy lesson, for example, the highest group will get to write a poem with a free choice of words in a similar style to the one studied, the middle group will write a few paragraphs on something around the general theme with much vocab given to them, the bottom group given a few sentences as regards what was happening in the lesson.
You can see the flaws in this system, it's possible that someone talented might be in the bottom group but due to poor evaluation and lack of opportunity to excel will never be seen to be as able as his peers in the top group.
In a good school, with a good teacher this is unlikely?
The bottom group are unlikely to excel in KS2 if this is the set up even if capable? Do some able children 'fall through the net' in this sort of scenario? What about a large class etc?
I'm always struck reading through posts here and elsewhere that parents seem to think 'ability' is fairly static. The forums are shot through with opinions about a child's static academic ability. John is 'able' at maths but less 'able' at english, one child just isn't academic and so on, there's a feeling that there's little room for John to smash anyone's expectations especially as he gets older.