Views on ability groups

[averywoomummy]

Having just read the thread about summer borns and having done a bit of reasearch on the internet about ability groups I was just wondering what people's views were on them.

Personally I am quite worried about how they are used at DCs school and wonder if I am right to be so. The thing is I could understand if they sat at mixed tables and then went into separate groups for maths etc but in DCs class they sit in their ability group for the majority of the time - even doing crafts within their group. This seems to very much fix them in their ability band and they don't get the chance to work with children of different abilities and share knowledge.

This also means the groups are very obvious and as they use the same names year in year out parents instantly know what group their child and others are in.

It also concerns me that it is a small classroom with a fixed number on each table and so for a child to move up - another has to move down (and vice versa) this doesn't seem right as surely children's development is very fluid and just because one is ready to move up doesn't mean that at the same time another child is ready to move down. It also seems quite divisive as children could perceive their place has been "taken".

As DC is in a lower group I also worry about her learning being capped and I think that even if she is capable of a bit more she may not be encouraged to do it. I worry that the lower group will start to see themselves as not so capable and that it will become a self fulfilling prophesy.

I can understand differentiation of work but does it have to be so obvious?!

Really interested to hear others opinions of how this has worked for their DCs - also how does a class with no grouping work?

[mrz]

Try reading the complaints on MN from parents whose child is reading books below their reading ability in their guided reading groups.

[cupcake80]

I would think it would be virtually impossible for a teacher to teach each child to their individual level even within an ability group. Say they have the average phonic group which could potentially have up to 30 children in (if there are 3 classes in the year group) it would mean them differentiating potentially 30 different ways and having 30 different pieces of work to give out beacuse every piece of work would be individualised. You would need some kind of super human who does not need to eat or sleep to be able to prepare that much work and that would just be for one subject!

[WooWooOwl]

I suppose I don't equate ability grouping with the automatic loss of differentiation.

[mrz]

cupcake it depends if you think work means "worksheet"

[mrz]

How much experience do you have of classroom organisation WooWooOwl?

[WooWooOwl]

I don't organise it, I fit in with it!

[mrz]

I'll take that as a zero then

[Huitre]

My child is not being catered for in her assigned ability groups. As it happens, it doesn't matter that much because she is a child who comes home from school and reads/writes/thinks without stopping and I am capable of supporting her and have the time and inclination to do so. But actually, I can't see what difference it makes if she is in a higher group or not if the work is still not actually pitched at what she is capable of (and demonstrating at school as well). Maybe if there wasn't a group as such, it would be more obvious that she wasn't really getting work that's particularly well-suited to what kind of level she's learning at.

[mrz]

or perhaps she would get work that meets her needs and not that of "the group"

[Huitre]

Yes. That's what I meant. Apologies if I wasn't very clear. I suppose I mean that if it was more obvious someone would have to do something about it! As I say, for her it doesn't matter that much. But I bet there are children with less parental support at home or not such good access to a wide range of books or whatever for whom it would make a big difference. And my daughter is very very enthusiastic about learning, both at school and home and I think it's partly down to the fact that even if she's doing easier stuff at school she is being given a lot of interesting things to think about at home so she is keeping her interest levels up. For a child who didn't have the home input that mine is lucky enough to have it might swing the other way entirely and they could really be put off learning in a big way.

[vkyyu]

My dcs also often complain they find the work too easy in their groups but they cannot have access to more challenging work until they move up. In our school many parents do do a lot with their dcs at home of course some are more able to select the resources and engage with children better than others. So some can do it more effectively. What annoys me is also the school knows that so why not just simply give homework to children so parents can use the school materials rather making up the extension work ourselves. But than again you often read even in MN alone many teachers don't believe in homework help support learning?! As well as in MN endless parents inc myself stated they pay or want advices for books, tuitions ie online, support centre, one to one or free online educational games........So what s going on?

[teacherwith2kids]

Returning to this one.

I think there is a big difference in how 'good/bad' ability groupings are depending on the type, and there is a kind of grey area as to when 'getting work that meets their needs in a particular lesson' shades into 'flexible ability grouping'.

So at one extreme you have 'sets' - classes / large groups, taught in separate rooms by separate teachers, to which children have been assigned by some measure of their ability. The teaching each group receives will be different, and the tasks attempted may be wholly different. Movement is rare, and may be only based on the results of formal tests. I can see no argument for this for young children, For older children - say upper juniors - there is perhaps an advantange for those at 'the extremes', but set against that must come the disadvantage for those who work at the top of 1 group / bottom of the next, and for those who have very different abilities in different aspects of the subject (e.g. a child who excels at calculation but finds shape very difficult).

Then there are 'fixed table groups', where input AND tasks assigned may be different, and again movement between tables is rare. Because all groups will be in the same classroom, there is more possibility for flexibility, and for children accessing whole-class teaching, and being extended / supported using materials from other groups. The benefit / harm of such an arrangement will depend very much on how rigidly it is applied - as reported elsewhere on this thread, sometimes the barriers between table groups can be as high as the physical walls separating sets [seems daft to me, but I know it does happen].

Then there is the 'lesson by lesson grouping according to personal next steps', which is where I would say the grey area lies. If it allows every child to access what they need to make the next steps in their learning, and as long as no child is denied the opportunity to access higher-level tasks / teaching 'because it's not for your group' or because 'group 3 always goes out with a TA at this point, missing the teacher's input', then the fact that children are, for that lesson, seated with a group of children who have similar next steps, does not seem to me to be a big issue.

Finally there is 'whole class teaching, mixed ability seating, children given individual support / challenge as needed within that structure' - the difference from the previous type being only that children stay in the same seat and do not move to join others supported / extended during that lesson in similar ways.

[teacherwith2kids]

LaQueen,

I have 2 very able children, who have been through a primary school that does not set for any lesson (it has table groupings that are somewhat flexible but not changed lesson by lesson), and teach in a school with a very able intake that does set for Maths.

Interestingly, the very able children do much better in Maths in my children's school - or rather, more children fall into the 'very able' group by the end of primary in my children's school despite the cohort as a whole being less able on entry. So 20%+ L6 in Maths in my children's school, over twice the L6 rate in the school with sets.

[mrz]

"Of course they're all very different. But some children are more intelligent, quicker to process and faster to absorb than other children in the same class."

Do you honestly believe it is possible to find a "group" of children who are all identical in ability to work together ?

[lougle]

So do you hold the opinion that intelligence is an innate, fixed, natural thing, then LaQueen?

How do you know that other children can't become as intelligent as their peers?

Do you believe that the massive hike in struggling children in the summer born cohort is because those children were genetically less able?

[teacherwith2kids]

LaQ, the point I am making is not primarily about levels. The point I am making is that NOT setting does not, IME, have a detrimental effect on the most able, and has a very positive effect on the rest of the class.

The difference in results between the 2 schools is, as far as I can deterine, predominantly that in the mixed ability classes the 'not originally measured as most able' are exposed to the teaching that will move them forward at a rate that allows them to achieve those levels, and by having no fixed 'top set' mentaility, that most able cohort can accommodate an increasing number of children.

In the school that is set, the 'set below the top' is not exposed to the teaching that will gain them very high levels, and also come to see themselves as 'not as good at Maths' and this not aspire to those levels either.

As i said in my earlier post, I do not have the same objection to a 'roughly ability based seating plan' [recognising that no group of children is homogenous] as I have to a rigid 'setting' arrangement, AS LONG AS groups are fleiible in terms of size and composition and there is no barrier to any child accessing the highest (or lowest) level of work if that is what they need for that lesson.

[elskovs]

"I don't think it fair, or right, that they be used as unpaid TAs, on occasion"

This happens often. Sometimes they are asked to work in pairs of clever/slow. And sometimes the bright children finish a piece of work quickly and instead of being given more are asked to help the others out. I think its awful that they are treated like that.

[teacherwith2kids]

Elskos, I have never experienced that as a parent or teacher, tbh. I do set all children tasks that involve explaining a task to a partner, as that is a really key skill [and how many times do we find that we don't REALLY understand something when we have to explain it to someone else??].

Some parents may choose to interpret that as 'their child being used as an unpaid TA', but what they don't see is that in the tasks I set, EVERY child has to explain their thinking, not just the 'bright' ones. It may be that when parents hear 'I had to eplain my idea to Mary', they assume that Mary is a lower ability and that Mary didn't then have to explain her idea back....

I am not saying that what you describe NEVER happens - I do know that my nephews' old school used to do this - but it is not 'normal practice' in my experience.

[mrz]

"For thousands of years, people have known that the best way to understand a concept is to explain it to someone else. “While we teach, we learn,” said the Roman philosopher Seneca. Now scientists are bringing this ancient wisdom up to date, documenting exactly why teaching is such a fruitful way to learn — and designing innovative ways for young people to engage in instruction."

[teacherwith2kids]

Yes, mrz, but only if it reciprocal and an experience that all children have - NOT a one-way 'able to less able' transmission.

[lougle]

I remember vividly storming through my maths work and then helping other children. I also remember listening to other children read in the library because I was a free reader and they were still on scheme. I remember doing 'investigations' instead of the maths tests because I got 100% all the time and they didn't want me to move too far ahead.

I also remember being made to work on a class art project when I would much rather be doing maths. Luckily the teacher was wise enough to know I needed a rounded education.

[mrz]

It isn't something I do in Y1 teacherwith2kids but I imagine that in order to teach someone else you need to understand what it is you are teaching