So ... do Reception children get 'streamed' or not?

[imaginaryfriend]

Dd's reception teacher doesn't speak about why they're in the groups they're in. But the mums say that they're being 'streamed' according to ability.

What do you guys think?

I know there are ability groups in Y1 as my friend's little girl somewhat tragically said she was in 'yellow group. the lazy group' the other day. I dread to think where she got that from.

But I'm not sure in Reception dd's in an 'ability' group as out of the 6 in her group there's she and two girls at about the same level of basic reading, knowing the alphabet phonically and counting pretty well. then there's a very bright girl who's reading brilliantly well, a boy who's incredibly disruptive but who's quite bright although can't read at all according to his mum and there's a girl who has English as a second language and speaks English fairly poorly.

Although others have said on here that the groupings may be to do with overall ability, i.e. comprehension and readiness to learn so maybe they're all at the same level in that respect?

I'm doing some voluntary reading assisting this afternoon so I may get some idea of what level one of the groups is. I'm meant to do 5 mins with each member of 'blue' group.

Ah right Pretty bird - so 'reception' is P1 to us Scots then?

Yes - they are streamed. Makes perfect sense to have similar abilities together.

In my class I have colour groups which aren't based on ability but I do tend to change these groups regualrly as some children may not get on in these groups or just to change the people that they are socialising with. Also I might move two children to gether who I think are going to work well together or move to chatterboxes apart LOL!!

You're a Reception teacher then? So what do you think that so many people say their kids are grouped according to ability? Is that the protocol?

I think they are probably grouped randomly and according to ability depending on what the task is.
If its something fairly exact and challenging then it must be better for the children to work with others of a similar ability at that time. If its an art/creative/investigative activity then ability groupings aren't necessary.
I'm sure that the groups change fairly regularly as children all learn and develop at different rates. Some who start school apparently very able may well level off as others in the class settle in and progress.
A good teacher (most I would expect) will deal with this sensitively and professionally. They have done it all before and presumably get good results from their system.

In DS1's reception class they were first grouped by age and then after half a term they were organised into rough ability groups, with a separate grouping for reading.
DS1 started in Blue, the least able, and then moved up to Red, the second least able, but was always in the top reading group.

In DS2's reception (different school), they didn't sit in groups, but in the third term they were grouped for literacy and numeracy. They stream across the year group from the third term of Y1 and then have ability groups within the streams.

I was a reception teacher and have also taught P1 in Scotland. Pretty Bird I think your comparison of English and Scottish system is spot on!

It is common practice nowadays in reception and P1 to put children into ability groups for language and maths only and to do whole class teaching for other subjects. Sometimes the reading groups may be different to language groups as abilities in the different areas can vary. It is true that once the children get older they certainly know what the groups mean whatever they are called, but this is not necessarily true for 4 and 5 year olds who still, hopefully, have a certain innocence about them!

Having taught using a variety of grouping methods I must say that I am in favour of ability grouping for maths and language as it helps ensure children are given tasks at an appropriate level for them. I like to use friendship groups or whole class teaching for other subjects though.

Oh, btw, the reason why so many teachers may be cagey when asked about grouping, is that they don't want to catergorise them too soon. Maturity plays a big part in a child's performance at this age and it is not uncommon for children to suddenly move up 1 or even 2 groups due to a sudden learning "splurge." Some parents may worry if a child is in a less advanced group, when maybe there is nothing to worry about.

WRT the whole group changing colour, dd's teacher changed group names termly, I think. One term they were names like sapphire, emerald and ruby. could it be something like that?

ours has said that they are random and that it wd be silly at this stage as it means that all the TA time is spent helping on group rather than each table getting a fair share of help

Well, having just now listened to 'red' group reading the books they've had for a week I can only say they must be mixed ability.

Dd, one girl and one boy read their books perfectly - they're level one books. Two girls didn't know a single word, not even 'I' and were reluctant to try. And the final one struggled but tried hard. The most amusing thing for me personally was that the girl whose mother says she's a 'fluent reader' was one of those who didn't know a single word. I sounded out 'c-a-n' with her and she looked up and said 'have'!

It's all very fascinating. I'm doing it again tomorrow to stand in for someone else. It'll be good to have a group with children I barely know. I'm quite familiar with dd's group.

Last year DD's class wasn't streamed. They had 3 tables but they were not based on abaility at all. This year - equiv to Y1 - they are streamed, although I am not sure to what extent the children realise.

DD's class groups this year are frogs, ladybirds and ??? one other similarly related. last year (randon settings) were fairy, ballerina and princess - all girls

Why is there a problem with children being grouped according to their development. There is a huge differene between a September born girl and August born boy.

Its not about denying children opportunity but giving them an approipate education.

Last year my son's reception class had girl who was reading stage 9 of the Oxford Reading Tree and another girl hadn't yet understood the concept of using a toilet instead of nappies!

To be honest I have colour groups which are mixed ability and the after October I also use groups for maths, language and reading. But to be even more confusing I still sometimes teach maths and language activities with the children in their colour groups depending on the activity! However I change my groups every half term as the children all develop at different rates.

And then, reallytired, there's ds1 who can read, but struggles to remember to go to the loo in time. I'm not sure that you cited two ends of the same spectrum.

Ok the particular girl has fairly major learing difficulties, when she started in reception she had virtually no speech. Quitely rightly she had an LSA and a lot of one to one work. She has made huge progress, but is not of a level with her classmates.

There is a huge difference between a child who has the odd accident and a child who REALLY does not understand what a toilet is for.

Its a matter of development and giving chidren what they are ready for. Its not saying that one child is a lesser being than another because one child is in in the butterfiles and the other child is in the snails.

I know, ReallyTired, let's shove all the August-born boys in the cupboard, throw them a bit of playdough, and lock the door. Then all the decent, hard-working, clever older girls can flourish.

In fact, why not ban boys from attending school at all? They are such a nuisance and do tend to spoil things.

i had a boy in my class last year whos birthday was 30th August and wow what a WHIZZ! He was reading at the same level as a year 2 when he left with the comprehension to match!!!

"In fact, why not ban boys from attending school at all? They are such a nuisance and do tend to spoil things. "

Yes, I do think that some boys should be banned from attending school and maybe some girls as well. At four years old most little boys are just not ready for formal learning. Infact many girls aren't ready either. A lot of European countries don't start school until seven years old.

Its unreasonable to expect an immature child to learn to write. They are much better off staying in nursery until they are ready for school.

On average boys develop later than girls. It doesn't mean they are stupid, its just differences between boys and girls. I think that Steven Bisoff who wrote "Raising Boys" thinks that many boys would benefit from defering entry to school.

September born child is nearly 12 months older than an August born child. Its unreasonable expect them to be same academic level. Why set up the younger child for failure or hold back the older child.

A good teacher will differentiate work. I can't see why parents should have a problem with their child being given work at the right level for them.

Er, okay, fair point. My dcs are both August born. Ds had no problems whatsoever and has always been at the top of the class. Dd, however, born August 30, started school last month and is not ready for the school thing at all. There is a child in the class who was born September 1, and of course she looks like a genius compared with many of the others.

I remember when I was at school (200 years ago) that we were all ranked according to age. Even the register was taken in age order, such that to this day I can still remember that, say, Karen Steel's birthday was September 15th!

I have no idea if they group to ability at my ds1's school, he has always done "nothing" and sits/does stuff with his best friend. I do know that he isn't being stretched academically, his reading books are at a level below what they should be and that on the few occasions he has done sums they were "easy". Actually, since starting school alot of his number concepts have gone backwards, mainly because he is at school all day so WE don't do things like playing top trumps, games etc.
BUT he is happy, and it is ONLY week 4/5, so I am just going with the flow atm.

Do most people's schools not do a two-tier intake? Dd's in her current Reception class with children born between September and February so there's not the huge age gap to contend with. The children born between March and September start in January but will be in their own class. I'm sure that must help in terms of age-based ability?

I was slightly shocked by my reading experience today because it seemed to me that the school was relying a lot on what parents do with their kids at home. It stuck out a mile to me the children whose parents had actually practised their reading books with them. Some of them didn't even know what the book was called! And yet I still had to tick the book off as having been 'read' by them and give them a new book for the week.

I don't know if this is typical but the teacher doesn't read these books with the kids, she does 'guided reading' with them as a group. Is that enough? Shouldn't they have one-on-one reading with the teacher too?

single intake only here (ds1 was 5 in Sep so one of the older ones, but there are Aug birthdays in there aswell - and some of them are just too young - as my ds would have been a year ago).
From what I can see the teacher/ta has listened to him read twice since he started, and they don't appear to be doing guided reading. If this is true (which it may not be - as I said below ds does "nothing" at school) I think that is very poor, I mentioned this to my mum (retired reception teacher) and she was all defensive and said it was early days, but then said she would be listening to them all twice a week by now (and she was on her own with a class of 30).
BUT if they listen to every child (say a class of 30) read for 10 minutes, that's 5 hours, that's a whole school day. So when you think about it like that twice a week is quite alot.

Why were you having to tick the book off? It would be more sensible to make comments in the reading book rather than just tick it off. It does make sense for them to have another book though, rather than take the same one home for weeks and weeks.

TheAprentice - it took me a while to get grips with it. Repeated questions on Mumsnet asking, "So, a child who is not ready for school age only just 4, so you hold them back, and then they go into the class they'd have been in the first place, only now they are still the youngest and now they have the added disadvantage of not having been in the same learnining environment as their peers, have not covered the same curriculum, and have to try to make friends with friendship groups that have already established"

The Scottish system seems much more sensible.