Seating arrangements in class (yr2)

[lottysmum]

Just wondered whether children are grouped together on tables in terms of ability?

My dd has gone back to school after half term and is now sat on a table full of boys for numeracy (50/50 sex mix in class)...which seems bit odd.

I haven't noticed this before...she's fairly bright and I know 3/4 of the boys are extremely bright all rounders.

www.standards.dcsf.gov.uk/research/themes/pupil_grouping/FriNov11552362002.doc/
he author concludes from her research that there is no support for the view that lower Key Stage 2 children learn more effectively in ?sets? for mathematics at any attainment level.
She demonstrates that the tail of underachievement is reduced and the range of ability within the class decreases when these children are taught in mixed ability groups.

www.standards.dcsf.gov.uk/research/themes/pupil_grouping/

The greatest value-added was in the school which retained mixed ability teaching in mathematics up to year 10 and subsequently continued to use a wide range of teaching methods, including within - class grouping.

I have no idea what the seating arrangement is it DS's class.

I trust the teacher knows what she is doing though.

DS does have his own workstation though, where he sits to do work.

Do you lot not know how to do normal links or are you being deliberately difficult?

Interesting idea from dancingbear's research that the brightest also do best from the mixed ability thing. Seems counter-intuitive to me and all the research linked to above just does the usual thing of telling us how to bring up those from the bottom and middle to a higher standard than they would otherwise, which makes perfect sense. But surely putting higher ability children together is the way to stimulate them? Or don't they matter as much other than to be generous with their ability and encourage those who are less strong?

Mrz, the op's class is a mixed ability class. All the research you quote talks about setting against mixed ability teaching, and actually advocates teaching in mixed ability classes and grouping within the class.

Well, I love setting for maths and I freely admit that it makes the planning and execution of the lessons much more 'manageable'. Got to be if you've got one end of the class who can't recognise the number 11 and the other end who can subtract thousands hundreds tens and units (which I have!). Sometimes, I hope we're allowed to take the easy route....!

That would be what mrz's research calls mixed ability teaching, and it is all in favour of it. Of course it is the best way to teach, ensuring children are given work that is precisely matched to their ability level.

The reports of schools where higher ability/lower ability children are bullied/teased concerns me, and is very sad. I do, however, think this says more about the ethos and culture of the schools involved. It should most definitely be addressed, though.

What the research calls setting, and says is for no-one's convenience except the teacher's, is something different - setting by ability across a year/key stage in class size groups; e.g 2 form entry schools where classes are set for Maths.

How children are grouped within classes has to come down to how it affects them - sorry teachers, but I really don't feel that putting kids into ability grouping because it's easier is a good enough reason to continue doing so, if evidence suggests that it is to the disadvantage of all groups of learners.

Defintion of what I'm talking about is ability grouping within the same class. I am not talking about expectations of all pupils being the same - it's a new way of approaching Maths for the UK - but there is advice out there for those who wish to dip their toe the the water.

I will summise points raised by The Elephant in the Classroom by Jo Boaler

www.amazon.co.uk/Elephant-Classroom-Helping-Children-Survive/dp/0285638475/ref=sr_1 _1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1244065513&sr=8-1

But the book is certainly worth reading by anyone who is in the business of teaching Maths to kids OF ALL AGES and gives parents a very interesting insight on how to help their own kids with a subject that is so often hated.

High ability learners struggle with ability groupings - Pressure to remain in the high group discourages them from asking questions as they don't wish to appear that they don't understand the subject -and evidence suggests that the more a child asks question the deeper they will understand the concepts taught. When higher ability kids explain maths to lower ability children rather than it holding them back it deeepens their understanding of the subject - extending them rather than limiting them.

Low ability learners are labelled as such at such an early age - sometimes as young as 4 and 5 years old. These kids are effectively told they can't do maths. Countries (Finland & Japan) which excel in their Maths ability would never even comtemplate labelling kids as low ability when their developement path has yet to be determined.

Notions of ability can lead teachers to place kids in the wrong groups - so shock horror - low ability kids aren't stretched so that they can achieve their potential too.

There is evidence that ability grouping can lead to socialising issues within classes.

I could on but I'd be replicating Jo's very passionately and well written book - essentially if you are interested - go read it.

As a parent who did Maths to degree level and always found it an easy subject, it has given me an insight into Maths from a kids point of view and has given me tools to help my kids love and be confident with Maths regardless of how the school chooses to teach them.

Will look to online sources of the research papers tomorrow for those of you who are interested in looking at things from a new perspective.

It's very interesting to read this.... my concern isn;t so much to wanting my daughter to be in a group of a certain ability...it's more wanting my daughter to sit with children who are focused no matter what their ability because I know she's easily distracted.

I read with surprise your comments Dancingbear because I was led to believe it was more the bright kids turning off in schools because more emphaisis was given to bringing the low ability kids up to average...so bright children were not being challenged enough...this is what I was told by a friend who is head of maths.

Bright kids should still be challenged and Jo Boaler really would be the last person to suggest otherwise - she believe passive teaching of mathematics is killing student's interest, her approach is more open, so that the question asked of the kids allows them to work to their own level. It requires the teacher to give up a little control - which apparently a few find hard.

Just felt you might want to be prepared for the other side of the story, before you had a chat with the teacher.

dancing bear - "How children are grouped within classes has to come down to how it affects them - sorry teachers, but I really don't feel that putting kids into ability grouping because it's easier is a good enough reason to continue doing so, if evidence suggests that it is to the disadvantage of all groups of learners"

Once again, the evidence referred to, and the comment that it is easier for teachers refers to setting NOT grouping within the class.
Setting as defined by these studies means, for example, taking a year group that has 2 classes, and teaching them in 2 groups of ability for Literacy or Maths.
Or taking Y5 and Y6, and teaching them in ability groups.

The evidence DOES NOT suggest that WITHIN CLASS GROUOING is to the disadvantage of all groups of learners!!!!!

And breathe.

Sorry Feenie but I really don't get the distinction - how is a set different to a group. Jo Boaler refers to sets and ability grouping as one in the same thing - and the distinctions in ability takes place within one class, not over two classes in a year group.

A set is, for example, taking 2 or 3 mixed ability classes, and then splitting them into 3 separate ability classes to teach Maths or Literacy. The other evidence quoted warns against this - I'm sorry, I'm not familar with Jo Boaler's studies.

Teaching a main session to a whole mixed ability class and then giving independent/group work which is matched to abilty is just good practice - how else can you ensure work is precisely matched to learners' needs?

Oooh, what Feenie just dissed is what our school does -- and I like it .
It seems to suit MY dc much better than when they were in a very mixed ability class for all subjects.
DS1 complains often & bitterly about how "stupid" low ability other children are in his class at most subjects, how he daydreams thru most of what the teacher said for those topics. DD moans about too easy lessons, sometimes. Else she's prone to bragging, which can't be good. Better that she's mixed heavily with other very able children & therefore not always an obvious top dog.

I didn't diss it! The research did

"The research" conclusions is just so contrary to my personal experience.
Last year I helped out in DS Yr3 class for 6 weeks, maths lessons.
The format was: teacher explains a bit, worksheets handed out (worksheets varied by ability group).
Least able pupils acted up and struggled with the work (and lost confidence) because they needed more explanation and they were anxious about not understanding what to do.
The most able pupils daydreamed, sometimes acting up because they were quite bored.
The middle lot were okay, they didn't tend to act up.

For years our primary school taught the way Feenie's research seems to recommend.
With some extra targetted sessions for the least able.
Last year Ofsted report said that our school was not stretching middle and higher ability pupils enough.
SAT results have been falling year on year for a while, too.
So this year, as much as possible, our school has switched to the children being in single classroom more homogenous ability multi-year groups for maths and English.
It will be interesting to see how things develop in next 3-4 years.