Typical proportion of children working at 'greater depth' in a class

[Getbackinthebox]

I wondered if any teachers could tell me what proportion of children in a class you would typically expect to be working 'at greater depth' and what proportion at 'age related expectations'? I am just trying to get a feel for where my daughter is in relation to her peers when she is mostly at 'age related expectations' (she gets the occasional 'greater depth' in something)?

I can only speak from experience both mine at 4 coukd tell me who in the class was best at maths, the best reader, who had the neatest writting etc. The work is often differientiated as well so theycan see who os doing which work. Full disclosure by oldest is 18 it may well have changed in the last 14 years.

I think it's natural to want to be able to see in a more tangible way how your child is doing - it's very easy to take the class as a proxy for the age group in general if you don't realise how variable a class's attainment can be. I suspect it's not really about trying to best the actual children in the class.

Differentiated tasks aren't a thing any more. Even back then, I'd really question the validity of a 4 year old's perception of the 'best'. It could just be whoever finishes first (maybe rushing), or whoever is confident to always put their hand up offering an answer (may not always be relevant/correct), or who got a sticker because they tried hard or did really well for them. A 4 year old's perception of being the best is often not linked to attainment at all, in my experience.

DS' class had differentiated worksheets until last year (Y3). They also had a list on the wall with everyone's book band (for adult reference but clearly visible to the children)

That very much depends on the school. My daughters’ school has differentiated tables aged 4 and certainly some of the children are well aware of what they are (some remain clueless). Differentiated work only isn’t a thing when schools are particularly short staffed or the teacher is lazy - not stretching the top end or supporting the bottom end is not acceptable at any age.

My son got 113, 118 113 on his SATS. He had a mix of working at expected and greater depth throughout primary (dependent on the year/teachers). He didn't do any extra for SATS. He passed his 11+ and did 6 weeks of practice in the summer so he knew the exam technique.

He decided to go to the mainstream school rather than commute to grammar school and is doing very well.

He didn't start getting GD until year 3 and not across all subjects (in my non teachers opinion he hit the markers). His school has a very stringent system.

The interesting thing is a lot of the GD kids (consistently) didn't do as well in SATS. His 118 in maths was top of the class.

Perhaps you need to do a bit of research before jumping to conclusions that lack of differentiation is due to short staffing or laziness 🙄

Setting different tasks means you put a ceiling on what you personally believe each child is capable of. Tasks in Reception should be open ended and differentiated by outcome, not setting separate tasks. We don't even have groups in Reception (not ability ones anyone).

Approaches have changed so much in the 15 years I've been teaching. It's quite possible some of you are talking about quite a few years ago, but it's not like that now (or it shouldn't be).

That's not quite true thie thinking has moved on to a new term ...I think its adaptive teaching.
Whether this looks any different to the lay person I don't know. I'm not a teacher, but I work in a school and talk has moved away from differentiation. They wouldn't view the alternative as lazy as it still supposed to support and stretch but in a different way.

I am a teacher, albeit secondary and it’s absolute nonsense, sorry. Invariably, it means the brighter kids are left to ‘consolidate’ their understanding by teaching others which whilst fine every now and again and for something they’ve just learned, is not ok for something they’ve known how to do for 2 years or are given one extension question which is done in 5m is and leaves them bored. In secondary, it’s still considered very bad practice and IMO, correctly so. Thus is why MN is full of threads asking whether a child should be moved to the local prep or if what they’re being asked to do is appropriate or should they get a tutor to stretch etc. Unfortunately, funding in state schools is so dire that there’s often no choice but that certainly doesn’t make it best practice.

In the primary schools I'm familiar with... Say a class of 30, perhaps 3-5 of them are genuinely exceeding. If that, TBH.

I’m a teacher too, though secondary. Differentiation doesn’t have to be different tasks- it can just be a chilli system but when it isn’t there at all is when you get the top end (usually) not reaching their potential or the bottom end (sometimes) struggling. This is why MN is full of threads with unhappy parents wanting to know what alternatives they have to mainstream schooling. I’ve been in teaching long enough to see fads come and go - what remains consistent is that certain things- like providing ability-appropriate work- is best for the child’s progress. As I don’t teach Reception children, I dare say it may not be the case there, but for older children it most assuredly is.

Our teaching experiences are clearly at very opposite ends of the spectrum. Approaches will obviously be different, but it's certainly not lazy to set children open ended tasks to be differentiated by outcome. It often takes far more thought and planning, rather than printing off 3 different worksheets for different groups to complete. Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't mean it is nonsense.

Lazy would be setting the same closed task for all the children to complete. That sadly still happens, as you note, and that is indeed poor teaching. That's not what I'm describing though.