Does your school have separate tables for clever and 'not so clever' children?

[Flightattendant]

Wondering if this is commonplace in primary schools...it was the case when we were small, and everyone know who were the 'clever' children and who was at the other end of the spectrum.
I remember it being awful and nobody from either group ended up changing from that slot all the way through school.

It seems ds's school is doing this as well and he's on the 'rubbish' table (his description of himself)

I am furious that he has been given this idea that he is not good at stuff

Someone mentioned they thought it wasn't allowed any more, but I don't know.

Would appreciate your comments on whether this happens at your child's school or not, and what the thinking is behind it.

Thankyou.

[lou031205]

I forgot to say: When I was young, I was top of the class. I didn't even sit the times tables tests because I always got 100%. I used to help some of the less able children by listening to them read (was a free reader, reading fluently before school). I was doing level 7 maths work when the other kids were doing level 3, etc.

I struggled terribly with self-esteem, I even saw a child psychologist, arranged by school. I don't think that the self-esteem issues come from being 'bad' at stuff, any more than being 'good' at stuff. I think it is more to do with being comfortable with who you are and happy to be a little bit different from your friends, etc. Some children cope better than others.

You are helping your DS by speaking to his teacher, which will show him that you care how he feels. But I think that his self-esteem will rise when he realises it doesn't matter, rather than when he gets 'better'.

[Cortina]

Hi Feenie, I was looking at Claxton when I wrote the reply. Up late so coming back briefly.

Didn't mean to sound patronising when I wrote that bit about teachers complex lives. I can see that It's true they have a lot to deal with, especially in big classes.

I think so much happens at a subconcious level that's the thing. Yes, children do move but it's one or two a term and when they do there's seemingly a lot of thought that it's better to leave them where they are so they don't lose confidence etc. I do believe labels are sticky and I do believe, from what I am reading, that a child who has been identified early as being 'bright' is unlikely to be recategorised after a run of poor results just as a child who has been identified early as 'weak' is unlikely to be seen as 'bright'. The weak child will likely be credited with lots of effort and another reason found for the 'bright' child's run of poor results, problems at home etc. 'Gifted and talented' children are expected to do very well academically in year 6 plus (mentioned details of this over on thread on secondary education).

I just don't think 'ability' tables are healthy at a young age. I know schools that are lucky enough to have much smaller classes (unlike our own) where the curriculum is rolled out much more individually and the children are spread out all over the class randomly. Things seems to work very well. Not sure what the solution is.

I think things have got better and still reading up on the subject with interest.

[Cortina]

From my thread on secondary schools. Hopefully explain what I am trying to get at more. Still reading up on this subject, it's one close to my heart:

I am interested that intelligence is not fixed and can develop and grow in all of us.

It seems many think of giftedness and talent as meaning possessing 'inherent all round ability' when what it should mean is that the current level of performance surpasses that of the peer group.

There is lots of talk about 'potential' at the moment it seems but it can be dangerous if we think of it in terms that some children have 'greater potential' than others.
If we think like this we might think that low achieving students have less 'potential' than high achieving students when you can equally reason the other way around. Those that haven't achieved much yet have 'more' potential.

From what I've been reading we should be concentrating on believing that intelligence isn't fixed and believing that all students aren't working anywhere near their ability ceiling.

I've written on another thread about 'ability' labelling and the inherent dangers. A child that has been labelled 'gifted and talented' early on is unlikely to be re-categorised after a run of poor results. It's likely that a reason will be found, he's got in with bad company etc. The 'bright' child will be described as not living up to its potential. A child that is seen as academically weak is unlikely to be 'upgraded' if they go on to do well. There's a danger 'over achieving' weak student will be credited with lots of effort rather than suddenly becoming 'gifted and talented' etc.

There's some statistics that say less than half of the children who came in the top 5% on national tests at 11 go on to remain in the top 5% at GCSE. Despite this the Times Educational Supplement in 2006 reported on a plan between the DfES and Specialist Schools and Academies Trust to encourage universities to establish links with pre-teen students who do very well in these year 6 tests. The Trust's chariman is apparently convinced that 'bright' 11 year olds should achieve 3 A's at A level and wants the heads of secondary schools 'held accountable' if children don't make the grade.

Gifted and Talented students will be registered cannot be 'let down' by secondary schools. Not that they shouldn't do well but spurts and dips in children's performance are apparently the norm rather than the exception.

Most of these ideas are explored by Bill Claxton and regurgitated here by me. He writes about the Pygmalion effect in other words self fulfilling prophecy, whether the students inclusion is justified or not. He also says they may suffer pressure by being 'registered bright' and become anxious and conservative learners. Those who don't make the list could suffer from a reverse Pygmalion effect and stand less chance of pushing their way forward if they are a late developer, or they might be comfortable without the pressure and lead a happier life.

The 'bright' children in our primary school are given extension work so higher SATS grades will more likely be on the cards etc. I'd argue that more than the 'top' table could do the work with encouragement, and so it goes on. It's easier to 'group' children together that are doing similar work.

I heard about a study done where two 'gifted and talented' pupils were identified in various primary school classes. They tested IQ and performance and found the highest achievers. They then fed back false results to the teachers of the classes (2 children were chosen at random) guess what? The performance and 'ability' of the 'chosen' children increased exponentially, they became 'gifted and talented'. Think I've already mentioned that one on this thread.

Guess you could say I am interested in the psychology of it all, what might be going on at a deeper level. Feenie according to my reading literature (at least in 2008) from the Department for Children, Schools and Families was filled with encouragement for teachers to attribute levels of 'ability' to their students and teach them accordingly.

Claxton goes on to explore why he thinks this is, etc - this is really fascinating I think. I am honestly interested that many who have commented on this thread, though not all, are thinking that 'ability' is fixed somehow: 'children of lower ability struggling with work they don't understand', talk of 'levels that suit their ability', 'the bright ones' the 'not as bright ones' and so on.

[Feenie]

"Feenie according to my reading literature (at least in 2008) from the Department for Children, Schools and Families was filled with encouragement for teachers to attribute levels of 'ability' to their students and teach them accordingly."

But 'to teach them accordingly' to most teachers means to make damn sure that every child has the opportunity to blossom and shine, to feel secure, experience success and to achieve their absolute full potential.

Most teachers would never place any kind of ceiling on any child's learning - it's not what any of us came into the profession to do.

[Cortina]

That's great and really encouraging but sadly I see children being failed because of the system I've described and just to be clear I am not blaming the teacher. Outliers (Gladwell) explains some of what I am trying to get at too ( From a review - Outliers asserts that success depends on the idiosyncrasies of the selection process used to identify talent just as much as it does on natural abilities).

There's a thread over on Education about how things differ from school to school and what might be done about it, off to read with interest.

[Cortina]

Sorry, it's actually about Education and social mobility, really great comments so far.