Just read the Mumsnet info on proposed N C Changes

[Sittinginthesun]

Am I reading this right? The plan is that a class can't move onto the next level, unless the whole class are ready?

How is this going to work? My dcs school has very mixed ability within a class, as I'm sure most schools do. In Year 3 maths, for example, around a 3rd of the class go up to Year 4, and a good handful are working at Year 5/6 level. Others within Year 3, are working at Year 2/3 Level. If the class have to wait for everyone to catch up, it would be chaos.

Hope I've completely misunderstood this.

No, that seems to be the message we're getting too!
I teach a mixed age class so have years 5 and 6. In maths, levels currently range from level 1 to level 7! My brightest may as well not bother coming in for the next few years!

Link?

Is this like the "no child left behind" which has been such a success in the US?

You can see the report of the expert panel here. Chapter 8 from p44 onwards is the relevant section.

It says, amongst other things, that some high-performing countries "appear to focus on fewer things in greater depth in primary education, and pay particular attention to all pupils having an adequate understanding of these key elements prior to moving to the next body of content ? they are ?ready to progress?... Teachers in such systems see their task as ensuring that all pupils have developed an adequate level of understanding of the key concepts and content in a block of learning prior to moving onto the next block of content. Labelling of differential attainment is of secondary importance."

If you read on, however, they are not suggesting that teaching should be undifferentiated. Those proceeding ahead of the expected level should be stretched and challenged, those falling behind should receive extra attention to bring them up to the expected level.

The differentiating for the brighter kids doesn't really happen though does it.

Well if it didn't I wouldn't have children working at levels from 1 to 7!

Sounds like you are one of the teachers all of the parents would like for their kids.

I'm pretty bog-standard I would imagine, I just think children should be taught at the level they are working at, rather than some arbitrary level governed by the year group they happen to be in!

Are you in a position to differentiate for perhaps just one student who is at level 7 and one student at level 1 then?
My dc is pretty good with tables but had to do 2x tables with her class yesterday, it drives her mad.

I have one at level 7 ( and he's a year 5 so next year will be fun!) He effectively has his own curriculum so covers a mixture of investigations and extensions into topics the rest are covering and also extending into the KS3 curriculum. I have a large group working at level 5/6 borderline who are the largest group in the class, with another group at level 4 and one at level 3. These groups tend to cover the same topics but at an appropriate level ( if we are looking at multiplication for example , the top group will be multiplying decimals to 3d.p whilst the 4's will be covering 3 x3 digit multiplication, the 3's will be covering 2x2 and 2x3 digit multiplication.) The lowest ability children ( one at level 1 and one at low level 2) will probably be using multilink and arrays to represent repeated addition.
It's perfectly possible but just takes some organising!

Wish you were my dc's teacher :o

I'm wondering if this is an accidental pedantry issue

"... Teachers in such systems see their task as ensuring that all pupils have developed an adequate level of understanding of the key concepts and content in a block of learning prior to moving onto the next block of content..."

If you interpret "all pupils" as "every pupil"", then you can get the potentially worrying situation in OP. But if it means "each" pupil", then there is no real change needed.

I think our school must work in a similar way, snowball, but tbh I just assumed that was the way all primaries worked (obviously but naive!). My DS's class seem to be spread over a number of levels - I was chatting to the year 4 teacher last week, and she was saying how she worries that she may be pushing the top too hard, but they seem to love it.

TBH, they all seem to work far better when they are working at their level, regardless of their age.

Hi Sittinginthesun

I've been reading a lot in the press lately about Finland's school system and I'm actually inclined to think it can't be any worse than what transpires at present.

The idea there is that parents and pupils have very clear ideas of what will be covered when. For example, everyone would clearly understand that the expectation of the school will be that additions to 2 digits will be mastered by end Y1. So everyone works to that. The school teaches it as a whole class. Children that join the school later and are behind or children that are struggling are given additional one on one tuition/ small group tuition & potentially extra homework to help them get to grips with whatever 'hurdle' in learning they're struggling with and swiftly caught up with the main group.

It's a sort of - today class we're doing page 4, tomorrow page 5, tomorrow page 6, etc... style of teaching that allows for intensive support for the child that struggles with page 5 so they can get caught up with page 6 work and rejoin the rest of the class as quickly as possible.

What isn't being said is that this system would result in children who are struggling and don't catch up being held back a year.

In terms of high flyers - the likelihood is they'd be moved up a year, to continue to have challenge.

Whether England/ Wales (as I don't think this will apply in Scotland) are ready for this system or not is another question. But it is an interesting idea.

In France there is whole class teaching and clear expectations of what all children will learn in each year (and teachers are not allowed to teach beyond the NC within a given year group).

There are advantages to the system - there is much less work for teachers! There are disadvantages to the system - many children are out of year in the French system, in both directions.

But doesn't that cause problems if they are not emotionally ready to move up? or if they get to year 6 and are working at year 8 level?

I have horrible visions of clashes between parents who have very high expectations for their child (and their child's teacher) and the parents who wish their child with SEN to be in a mainstream school.

But what happens when you have moved up as far as you can go?
My level 7 boy is in year 5 but has been working with year 6's for the past two years, he is certainly capable of moving up to secondary school in maths but what about art or PE or french or a whole host of other subjects?

And what about the children who will always struggle with page 1 let alone page 4, 5 and 6! I have a girl in my class currently working at level 1. She has had every intervention, every support package and continuous 1:1 since reception, but she is still working at level 1 and probably always will, for some children there is no "swift catch up", it simply doesn't happen.

I, with my limited knowledge, would have thought that the answer would be to work with the children as individuals, rather than just classes. I appreciate it's probably a nightmare for teachers, but it must be better for the children.

What do public preps do? Do they follow the NC? Do they teach as a class or as individuals? Just curious as to whether the UK has any experience of this?

I think you need to remember the official consultation has been delayed as has the planned date for the new curriculum to be introduced. At this stage no one really know what the final document will look like because Mr Gove is fickle...

........and nuts

I, with my limited knowledge, would have thought that the answer would be to work with the children as individuals, rather than just classes. I appreciate it's probably a nightmare for teachers, but it must be better for the children.

But that's what we do now, children are taught to ability rather than a strict set of age related criteria. The proposal seems to be that the class is taught as a whole and the high flyers are "moved up" ( but to where?)

I dont think the proposal is actually saying anything too different about how teachers teach but about what they teach.

At the moment children are differentiated for but are also taught a certain amount at their expected level. For example, area comes up in year 4 and 5, even though not all children are ready for it. You might do a teacher led part on area (a level 3 skill counting squares, level 4 is width x length) and then the children do differentiated activities. Some children will be level 2 but, as counting squares isnt too hard, they will generally still do perimter.

What they are now proposing, I think, is that things like this dont happen that much. If children still cant do their times tables and tell you the properties of a square, dont start getting them to measure angles. Its a really tricky issue in upper key stage 2 as you dont want the children bored to tears but why move them on when they cant use full stops?

They are proposing opening up the curriculum a little so teachers have more time to concentrate on the basics and dont have the pressure of 'must move on or we wont get all the units done!'. I dont think for a second they are saying 'we teach this in year 1, this in year 2, this in year 3....'