Do educators assume that 'ability' in the class room follows an approximate bell sized distribution?
They do, but psychologists would say that there is a different shaped bell curve for males and females. More women are similar to each other in IQ terms, whereas with men you get a greater number in the top and bottom groups. Of course this is complicated by other variables such as social class, age, ability to pass certain IQ tests and so on, so is a rather blunt tool.
Within the classroom there will roughly three groups of children the below average, average and above average.?
No, the bell curve only really applies to the whole population, or at least a very big sample, so cannot apply to a group of 20-30. It would be technically possible for a random class of children to be surprisingly similar in ability, whereas another class in the same school might vary a lot more within the class.
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?
Herein lies the problem. NC targets are based on a Government policy aimed at reducing variation amongst schools. However they have ended up being used for a number of purposes including promoting the concept of the average child's attainment as a proxy for achievement in a particular subject, probably at the expense of the top and bottom 10% receiving proper attention.
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.
This is reasonable enough but all too often children in the bottom 25% at an early age are left with a limited menu of educational experiences compared to those perceived as being more able. This then becomes a vicious circle as they do less and less challenging work and their progress curve is less steep over the years.
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.
Exactly, and in many cases teachers are poorly trained and equipped to carry out this evaluation, yet labels stick.
In a good school, with a good teacher this is unlikely?
It is impossible to tell and mis-labelling happens in all schools, and it could be said that all teachers may make this mistake at some point in their career. However the better ones make fewer mistakes. A good analogy would be mis-diagnosis by GPs. There are always times when people fail to get antibiotics in time, or a suitable referral, but hopefully a good GP will be aware of the likelihood of making a mistake and remain vigilant, changing his/her mind and making amends as necessary.
The bottom group are unlike
ly 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?
They fall through the net all the time. Vigilant middle class parents are often able to address this, but less vocal parents receive an impoverished education for their children. My personal view is that it is possible for almost all children to meet targets at KS2 with the right teaching and resources, if they attend school regularly and do all the work required in a sensible manner.
I'm always struck reading through posts here and elsewhere that parents seem to think 'ability' is fairly static.
It is not completely static, no psychologist would ever say that. IQs can be developed over time with the right stimuli and resources. However you are unlikely to be able to lift an IQ more than about 10 points in my experience. However that could make the difference between sitting A Levels successfully and not sitting A Levels, for example, so it's worth remembering.
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.
Interestingly it is well know that children can move schools and be perceived completely differently in the new institution, if they have no prior knowledge of the child's supposed capabilities. However in the main there is a broad correlation between opinions of pupils held by different teachers. It's unfortunate that some children slip through the net, and it's probably these cases we hear most about on MN. That will never go away, but it would be helpful if teachers reviewed ability groups more often and also challenged lower achieving children more intensively. I would also say that children can be asynchronous, in that they can be age 11 at reading whilst being age 8 at maths, age 9 in real life and age 3 at tiding up their bedrooms. It's called being human!
Hope that helps.