Agree with Easter Bunny. 'Intelligence' isn't fixed it's expandable, for everyone. Being 'bright' is also as much to do with determination and self discipline as intellect. Studies are increasingly showing this.
I am not a fan of 'streaming' in the early years. Ideally the curriculum should be tailored to each individual child but appreciate that resources usually make this difficult or impossible.
If they must sit in 'streamed' tables I prefer these to be about current attainment levels rather than inherent perceived ability and for all concerned to realise this on every level.
Problem is It's a human tendency to attribute stable characteristics to other people especially if there is inadequate information. Teachers have enormously complex lives and need to impose some order on a mass of personalities and interaction. This is how 'labels' can come about and once bestowed I believe they can be very sticky, limiting and dangerous.
For example it might be thought 'Jason's a little terror' or 'Louise is easily upset'. This might be expanded upon so that Jason is not only troublesome but 'very bright'. Louise is 'weak' as well as emotionally fragile and David's helpful but quite average. Particular heed is paid to children's achievements in high status subjects like English and Maths which maybe assessed over quite short periods.
All this is coupled with whether children are perceived as being fast or slow on the uptake and generally obliging or a bit rebellious.
Once judgements are made it is rare they are rescinded. Studies have shown it is a rare for a bright child to be re-categorised on a basis of a run of poor results as it is for a 'weak' child to be upgraded if goes on to do well.
Often it will be said that the 'bright' child is not fulfilling their potential and some reason found for it, getting in the with children who are a bad influence etc, etc. The over achieving 'weak' child will probably be credited with a surge of effort not an increase in 'ability'.
Haven't you heard people repeating that so and so is naughty but bright even seemingly without any evidence? etc I know I have. I seems to become the collective view of the class and community after a while.
I go in to help and see these 'ability' tables in action. I've noticed Parent helpers/assistants etc seem to speak more slowly to the 'bottom' table and take extra care and time. Perhaps not a bad thing and I think it might even be subconcious on their part.
I've seen children at the 'top' table anxious to show me how good they already are (again maybe not a bad thing) but confident learners have courage, given the choice they'd rather learn than display what they can do. This is the goal I hope to work towards with my own kids.
From what I've seen the children on the 'bottom' tables are trying to get to the top, they want to be on the top reading books etc and are inherently ambitious. Again perhaps not a bad thing? But I'd rather do away with it all and tell they children they can do anything and see what happens.
I'm so interested in this. Reading at the moment about the 'pygmalion effect'. Studies have shown that when an 'average' child is told they are 'gifted and talented' and moved into such a group their 'performance' increases.
Another study was done where primary school teachers were told that their pupils were being tested to ascertain who had the most potential and highest IQ. They then fed incorrect results back to the teachers and picked two children at random and said these were the highest performers. Guess what? The chosen children's performance and tested IQ increased enormously over time. It's about the 'messages' the children receive and this to my mind isn't good news for any of them.