Questions about 'ability' in the classroom

[Cortina]

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.

Interesting again, BoffinMum, re: starting at 6 proposals etc.

I do think that children in many countries that 'start later' have often been considerably primed in the 3 Rs beforehand. Many will be able to write a simple sentence and read to an approximate ORT stage 3 level for example. The idea then being that they can hit the ground running at 6 and are mature enough for a more formal set up. I think many of us in the UK believe in the myth of a foreign child that's been playing all day between the ages of 3-6 and then begins school for formal learning in a raw state, unfamiliar with the 3 Rs etc. (Having said that I am sure this happens sometimes but probably less than people imagine).

I am also curious, tying in to the ideas raised re: ability, in confirmation bias and how it might manifest itself in the primary classroom. Be interested to see what people think.

For example imagine you are a teacher with child in Y2 you consider fairly average, he has a pushy Mum and you believe she overstates his ability in lots of areas. You are assessing him. There's a time pressure, you expect him to show what he's capable within say 15-20 minutes absolute maximum.

He's just moved on to short chapter books and it's your bias/belief that he really can't understand them, he just barks out the text. You are a good teacher and you realise that you should fight against any inner prejudice and wouldn't knowingly label a child. You plan to be open minded and give him the benefit of the doubt.

You ask him what the book is about, what happens next, and to sequence some events. He stumbles, hesitates, he's a bit vague frankly. Now he doesn't want to respond, surely this shows deficient comprehension? He hasn't been able to give the 'correct' answers in the time so needs more reinforcement at this level etc.

It's not easy to assess understanding, especially in the early years. If a child can't verbalise an idea or concept it doesn't necessarily mean they've not grasped it. Mum says at home the child laughs away at plot subtleties and show evidence of reading between the lines with comments they make etc. They haven't shown the teacher this. Hopefully this is where continuous assessment and various different testing methods come in to play, they avoid this sort of scenario?

I read a comment once that said primary teachers sometimes are more emotional and relational (as opposed to intellectual) and this can make them ill equipped to deal with children who can't verbalise their understanding? Not saying I agree but it's interesting to think about.

I've read that many teachers often don't believe children understand words they read or numbers they manipulate as well as their parents say they do. There are allegedly a couple of reasons for this. One is that underestimating comprehension might avoid or postpone teaching material that can be awkward and tricky to teach at that time. Another is underestimating understanding means that the range of abilities in the class appear to be more level (not my experience). Parents may say children understand but if they don't REALLY understand the complexities of comprehension and maths concepts then there is less pressure to provide them with an accelerated curriculum. Robert Pondiscio has written about this and I am regurgitating some of his ideas here.

It could also be that parents often do wildly overestimate their child's ability. I know I can :) although I'd dispute that I do so 'wildly'. This must be a pain in the neck for teachers but I believe more transparency about what actually goes on in the classroom would calm much of this.

I have never pushed my son. I think its pointless. I was a parent helper for 2 years and I have seen time and again dc who are at the top of the class all through infants and by the time they leave juniors are distinctly average. The "under achievers" have usually caught up and sometimes surpassed them. I have also seen parents who rush their dc through the book band stages even though the child can barely get through a sentance without help.

In reception the homework book advised reading with the child for 10/15 mins 3 times per week. My son probably did this twice a week as he didnt like reading very much.

His reception teacher was happy with him and his progress.

Cut to the first term in year 1 and suddenly he is labelled "struggling" and is made only to aware that he is not considered "good enough".

One particular girl sticks in my mind...she was on a book 2 levels above my son and yet my son was a better reader! She stumbled over every other word and read with no expression at all.....the teacher had given in and let the parents rush the child through the stages before she was ready.

I just dont see the point.

My son may never read as voraciously as I do to gain as much pleasure from it, but he sure as hell wont feel "not good enough" again.

Cortina if it is any help I am now teaching the children I taught two years ago when they were in reception and many of the children who are doing exceptionally well now were slow starters in reception.

Cortina, your description of a teacher's assessment might be a possibility if we spent 15-20 minutes a day with a child, but we don't , we spend 6 and a half hours a day, five days a week with and assessing them. Like Mrz, the children I am teaching nowq in Yr 6 I also taught in Reception, Yr 1 , Yr 2 and Year 5. I know their strengths and weaknesses, their leaps and their spurts , the time when I worried they would never read, and the times when they never stop. I KNOW my children and, quite frankly, spend more time with them than some parents. Assessment is not something I, or any other teacher does in a 20 minute slot one Friday afternoon.

Spaniel you're so right. Working out the length of time teachers spend with each child by dividing teaching time by thirty so misses the point. Like saying I only spend fifty per cent of the time I am with my dd and ds with either of them.

spaniel Erm, I beg to differ!

My sons dire year 1 teacher excelled in trying to assess my sons reading ability at 2.50pm on a friday afternoon!!!

After he wrote a comment in ds1's reading record that ds1 wasnt "concentrating".

I wrote back suggesting that perhaps friday afternoon when he was very tired after a full week of school and when the rest of the class was being read a story wasnt the best time???

I didnt get a reply.

oh, and in the ENTIRE academic year heard ds1 read 3 times.

Nuff said.

Certainly wasn't a good time to choose! Hopefully this wasn't the only assessment your child's teacher did with regard to reading. I asses every time a child reads anything from the board, from games instructions during golden time, from independent reading, from guided reading and at every opportunity I can!

In the Y1 class I workin the literacy and numeracy groups change regularly, esp after each half termly assessment work. There is a massive difference in ability ranges in our class so some form of differentiation by task is necessary. We have children who can write pretty much independently, having a good attempt at spellings, using punctuation, etc to children who are still learning letter shapes and how to put 2 r 3 sounds together to make a word.

We also change groups at other times, sometimes on a day/weekly basis depending on the specific tasks we are working on.

RMCW, isn't it slightly contradictory to say that the teacher 'excelled' at hearing him read at 2.50 on a Friday afternoon, but also that he only did it three times in a whole school year?

He "excelled" in doing it at a stupid time, pink.

It was the only thing he did excel in!

I did think it strange that in my 2 years there as a parent helper no child ever moved ability group

Does that seem odd to you guys?

No, it doesn't. As I said earlier the 'ability' groups are pretty broad and each child has their individual targets. Sometimes they have the same target as other children but that's generally coincidence.

"oh, and in the ENTIRE academic year heard ds1 read 3 times"

So I presume your child never participates in any class activities then? Teachers listen to the kids in groups, when they are doing projects and have to read off the board or out of a book, read plays, read poetry.

Just because they might only sit down and do a specific one-to-one listening exercise doesnt mean they are not aware of how a child can read.

I am also guessing that your child/ren are good readers and dont need the daily/weekly sessions with a teacher? Or is this not the case?

Sorry, just read your messages below about where your child is at with reading.

"I think many of us in the UK believe in the myth of a foreign child that's been playing all day between the ages of 3-6 and then begins school for formal learning in a raw state, unfamiliar with the 3 Rs etc. (Having said that I am sure this happens sometimes but probably less than people imagine)."

Not a myth as far as Scandinavia is concerned. When I started school at nearly 7, the first few weeks were spent showing the children the letters of the alphabet, starting with the letter A. By the end of the first year, the whole class was reading fluently. As it so happened, I could already read before I started school, but that was because I had taught myself, not because it was expected of me.

When my nephews started school recently, they did not know how to read despite several years at nursery and preschool: the early years are still very much about practical skills- they knew how to ski and skate and do basic cookery.

Interesting to hear Cory. I had Asia mainly in mind and other parts of Europe.

You mentioned practical skills, I read something about Finland recently where it said children were often more often involved in practical tasks (compared to the UK) at home, even rewiring/helping build houses, tinkering with engines, sorting out cars etc and these had great cognitive benefits going forward. When schoolwork was formally introduced the culture was to take it more seriously. This coupled with little TV and that sort of distraction plus children sleeping early meant children learnt well and quickly when they started school.

Spaniel thing is I've been told son needs to verbalise and demonstrate understanding in a short, time period.

I was surprised when it became evident at parents evening, when he was in reception, that the teacher really didn't 'know' our son in the way we did. She said he couldn't rhyme and didn't understand the concept- he could do it standing on his head in every sense imaginable! No doubts in my mind whatsoever. He hadn't provided them with evidence and I wrongly assumed his strengths would be understood anyway.

Generally early on I found that verbal, articulate, extrovert children had an advantage - they could usually demonstrate their understanding.

Cortina, I'm in the same boat as you. Things that I know my dd can do really confidently for months the teacher said she could not do in school. Said 'maybe it's because you are her mum when she sits with you she does it and at home it's quiet and she can concentrate. In the classroom we have a few kids who would easily take over the class if we let them'
Took her to Kumon for an assessment last week. She was there with other kids she did not know and a tutor she had never met and she managed to demonstrate to them what she knows.
I just don't know what to believe. Is my daughter really lacking confidence in class and won't show what she can do? Or does the teacher not know what she can do because there are too many kids and my dd slipped through the net?

Just think that it is wrong that there is so much ability setting at too young an age... People talk about needing differentiation,, but in fact even though a child can be ahead in say reading at 4, there are many other aspects of literacy that they may be behind or average on e.g. Comprehension, writing etc... However they are generally put in the top group if they are ahead in reading and pushed faster than those who at 4 can't read but may have very good comprehension skills etc...

This is how the potential for labelling starts if the teacher is not moving around every week (which is actually what's needed at this age as ability changes rapidly) but it is a big logistical problem, so it doesnt happen, and rather than accept that it is not possible so dont do it, it happens, and children can stay far too long in the wrong group, and lose pace, and find it hard to catch up, as you only know what you have been taught.

It can actually become a self fulfill prophesy, which is great for the top tables but not so great for the bottom ones. it also gives, like it or not, and even if the teachers try hard not to make it so, the lower table children a feeling of failure or being "behind" when actually they are not, just in one area, but this feeling pervades potentially into other areas, and they are not given the same opportunity for rapid learning as others and at such a young age is it not necessary to group in this way, later maybe but not at 4.

Hi Elin, thankfully I think we're over the worst now and are lucky with a good teacher in Y2. This said he was recently assessed at the wrong level in one area. I would say as a parent don't be scared to be your child's advocate and you do need to be constantly on the ball IME.

I find the whole subject interesting - wrote a long post on confirmation bias a few posts back. Would you agree with this out of interest: I read a comment once that said primary teachers sometimes are more emotional and relational (as opposed to intellectual) and this can make them ill equipped to deal with children who can't verbalise their understanding?

In time your DD will show what she can do I am sure. I am encouraged when teachers comment that it all levels out in the end etc and stragglers in the early years often overtake their peers in time. I have to say this hasn't been my experience at all, not least because those capable but slower to flourish sometimes don't believe in themselves as much as they should in the future. Lots of explanations in books like Outliers about those who are advantaged early doing very well in the future.

Eleven plus failure, common entrance failure, sitting in the bottom sets for years on end, all of these can take their toll. Late developers, who don't fit the general pattern, are often a pain in the neck to educational establishments. How can you possibly be future Oxbridge material even if people tell you later? Self doubt creeps in. Etc. Not for all of course but if you've always been golden, chosen and believed in your self confidence is likely to be higher.

Cortina - I think this is all rubbish - or at least not generally applicable. All of this might catch some people out some of the time - but no way has a huge correlation.

What you are really suggesting is that there will be a huge correlation by people who have 'good job' and people who were on the top table in reception - which is utter rubbish.

People who are told they are good are often the ones who fail the most, because they believe they are good and therefore don't have to work at it.

All of the books I have been reading say that it is praising for effort not achievement which can make a real diff to your life....

My 3 kids are all very confident and very happy. What table they are on has had no effect on their confidence or happiness. (And the are / have been very much on the bottom table)

All of the people I work with have good jobs - and they def weren't all early readers or kids who shined at 5.

Of my 5 siblings the 2 who did the best at reception are the ones with the most self esteem problems and the worst jobs.

If your child doesn't believe in themself - change your parenting, rather than blaming everything on the 'school system'.

The research also does suggest that extroverted kids do better in the early years, but quiet introverted kids do better in the later years.......

You are overthinking all of this way too much. You are the biggest influence on your kids. Not anything else.

Indigo, don't get me wrong I am not in 'complaining' mode, but 'exploring'. Boffin Mum made some great points (rather brilliantly) earlier in the thread about what I was driving at/hoping to discuss and explore further.

I think that's it, some people are 'caught out' by flaws in the system some 'slip through the net' but as you say it isn't common. This doesn't mean it never happens, a child who is a 'victim' of it should be ignored or some of the questions I raise aren't worth exploring IMO.

My own personal experience has been those that have started ahead have tended to stay ahead - along the same lines as themes explored in Outliers. I am open minded enough to listen & encouraged when others say it isn't so.

I don't 'blame' the school system. I'd like to see a few changes smaller class sizes, the curriculum rolled out to the individual (as in our local prep) so less need for 'ability' groupings etc. I appreciate this is unlikely to happen. Teachers do a v good job in difficult circumstances most of the time.

We see so many on here that say teachers don't recognise what their child can do etc too, that's curious and piqued my interest given my own experiences. I tried to think about possible reasons why in my earlier post on confirmation bias.

I couldn't agree more with praising the process and not the end result by the way. I am a huge Carol Dweck advocate. I am very pleased your children are confident and happy.

IndogoBell - because thankfully this has not happend to you it is easy for you to say it makes no difference and it hopefully is not generally applicable but it does happen. And to say to Cortina to change her parenting is a bit harsh. What do you even know about her parenting? First of all all kids are different probably born with different personalities but the environment in which they grow up and school life being a major part of this since they spend 5 days a week 6 1/2 hours a day there does have a huge impact on their lifes. You might be right in that we are overthinking this but it's our kids and of course we want what's best for them. In my case it is my first child who has started school and I am not too familiar with the school system since I did not go to school in this country. But when you discover a flaw in the system you cannot help but worry how things are done.

Elin - I guess my point is to stay in your sphere of influence.

There are lots of things in the world I care about, but a far smaller number of which I have any influence over.

So I spend all my energy trying to improve the things I can improve.

2 of my kids have been badly failed by their previous school. I spend far too much time stressing and worrying for them.

But I am channelling that stress and worry into things I can do to help them. And in this way I am having a huge effect on their lives.

One of many many things I did for them was to move schools. But there is no getting round that because of their various SEN school is a very hard place for both of them to be.

Worrying over flaws in a system is a waste of good worry I could be using to improve DD and DSs life.

Looking at my own parenting is not a waste. This is something I have total control over and hugely effects my children.

Cortina - I too have read outliers and love it. But when you talk to the UK teachers here on this board it does appear to be an oversimplified view of schools. But mostly, there is nothing I can do about it.

As you probably know, my DD is doing incredibly badly at school. Absolutely on the bottom table for everything - by a long way. Coupled with the fact that she has a very high cognitive ability life is not easy for her.

But being on the bottom table hasn't effected her confidence. And certainly the key to helping her in the classroom will not be moving her to a mixed ability table.

My DS has ASD and also has serious problems at school. His confidence is higher than the work he can demonstrate in class. And once again moving him to a mixed ability table will not solve any of his problems.

Honestly, if either of your children are actually demonstrating the lack of self belief and confidence that you are talking about - this is something you can change through parenting.

Cortina,
I totally agree with what you say and would be great if changes could be made but realise they probably won't but it is important to always look at ways of improving things. Even if it is not the whole system then to look at what can be improved in my dd school.
Ohmydear - what you are saying is what concerns me. How can ability groups work, how can they possibly with a class of 30 know where a child is and the logisitcs of moving group, I can't see it happening. I assume there can only be a certain nr of kids in each group. And like you say at that age their ability changes from week to week.