No Setting for Years 3 and 4

[BaconAndAvocado]

Just found out today that at DS's junior school they are no longer setting for English or Maths in Years 3 and 4.

Was quite shocked at this but it's apparently a directive from the new National Curriculum. As the gaps in ability get bigger with the children getting older I wonder if this is a good idea?

I think it's unusual for primary children to be set at all! Most primary teachers just teach their own class.

Year three and four are one class and all taught together at our school - never been a problem for my kids.

Not set in DD2's school (single form entry). Just move 'tables' with some differing expectations for tables.

eg. Write a descriptive poem.

Top table at least 16 lines, rhyming & scanning, including similies and metaphors

Lowest table 8 lines, not rhyming or scanning, 2 similies

Agree with the others that setting is pretty unusual / almost unheard of in Years 3 & 4, so it's not something I would worry about, providing the teachers can differentiate work effectively. I'm pretty sure there's nothing in the new NC about setting or otherwise, though, so not sure where the school have got that from.

Setting in primary has been show to be ineffective at best and detrimental to many

Isn't it a pain to coordinate lesson times and have 60 children changing classrooms? Ours stay in their classes and are grouped by ability within it. Doesn't seem fundamentally all that different and the groups can be any size. I guess it's just what you are used to.

Agree with others, setting is quite unusual in years 3 and 4. Most of the schools I know don't and their children are fine. In fact it's more likely that the gaps are getting bigger because of the setting rather than the age of the children.

Does anyone have a link to this being a directive from the new curriculum? This isn't the first time I've heard something similar but it's not something I've seen written officially. Although I haven't actually looked that hard.

At my 2 local Junior schools it has been the norm.

I can't see any benefits to moving away from setting. Within a class group, of any ability, e.g. Less able, able and more able, the teacher would then further differentiate so that the childrens' needs are met to an even greater extent. How can ever be seen as a negative?

I was told by one of the teachers that it's come from the new curriculum.

How can that ever be seen as a negative.

I have a feeling 'it's the new curriculum' might be the default answer to stop parents complaining.

It's a negative because the research shows that most children in setted groups make less progress than children of a similar ability in mixed ability groups. It's not as simple as ability grouping and then further differentiating.

Of course if you end up with mixed ability classes with fairly fixed ability groups within that, then you are not much better off. Although certainly no worse off.

That research surprises me rafa

Do you know where I would find it?

If that is the case then I guess I've got nothing to worry about. DS needs to be challenged, like lots of children.

Apparently the details will be on the newsletter on Friday.

As far as "it's the new curriculum" is concerned, you're probably right and the other local Junior school is continuing to have 5 learning groups across each year group.

The Education Endowment Foundation data suggests G&T pupils can make one or two months more progress when streamed by ability but most pupils will make less progress in a class set by ability than those in mixed ability classes.

I'm not sure it was the EEF data that I read. I think there's something else too, but I'm not sure where I found it.

Sutton Trust?

Honestly haven't a clue. It was at least 6 months to a year ago and I've read a lot of stuff since then. Particularly on maths and differentiation and mixed ability vs ability grouping so I don't know if I'd know where to even start looking for it.

There's something in Hattie which was in the news quite a bit last year and the Teaching and Learning Toolkit.

Hattie in a study of 250 million students found ability grouping had an effect size of 0.10 (with 0.40 being a typical effect size and below that found to be an ineffective strategy)

I was reading a lot of Bryce-Clegg stuff to do with objective led planing, some stuff about mastery vs spiral, differentiating out as well as up and a couple of threads on TES on mixed ability grouping at the same time. I'm sure I'll find it at some point, but my Googling skills are not good today.

It might well have been the EEF data. I remember the conclusions being pretty much the same.

These might interest you, OP

www.headteacher-update.com/cgi-bin/go.pl/article/article.html?uid=96146;type_uid=79;section=Features

www.ncetm.org.uk/resources/33435

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070915104849.htm

Thanks rafa will take a gander at those later tonight

In the newsletter it said,that the class teacher would be "teaching to the top".