Can we lose the word 'ability' in the primary classroom?

[Cortina]

It's a seemingly very small thing but if we spoke about current attainment rather than 'ability' in the primary classroom I think it would be a great leap forward. Actually not just in the primary classroom but most importantly here.

I've been reading about CLAPS - how about CLAP tables? (current level of achievement and performance).

Let's do away with the term 'ability tables' - they make some children think that ability has a ceiling and we are making fatalistic predictions about what can be expected of them.

There is no scientific justification any more - if it ever existed - for labelling children as having different amounts of 'intelligence', 'ability' or interestingly even 'potential'.

It's also dangerous and counter productive to do so, so let's banish the word!

Intelligence is learnable.

Hum. It just seems to me like we keep changing language because of small subtle perceived possible detrimental effects, leaving people (parents) confused about the new jargon, and in the end the kids still know who their most/least "able" peers are, anyway.

Maybe listen to the likes of MRZ (poster on mn) who talks about no ability groups at all in the classroom where she teaches; that always intrigues me.

Great if possible to do everywhere.

I actually feel that calling them ability groups - suggests that's exactly what they are which is more than mere semantics and potentially extremely damaging.

So you keep saying! I'm not sure we need yet another thread about it, do we?

Plus - who calls them ability groups/tables anyway? I still think it's an issue with your dc's particular school.

I don't know anyone who mentions ability tables or talks about ability. I would take it up with the school.

Sorry Feenie! I will be quiet now I promise...It's a real bugbear of mine.

If you look at the other threads on here, you'll see that a great many people talk about ability tables in the classroom. (I admit I am sensitive to it so probably spot references to these systems more than most). There's a thread on here this morning which touches on this issue and provoked my post.

I really don't think ability groupings are unusual but might be wide of the mark. What's unusual in my case is that they are more static than many it seems (?)

To Riven, yes I believe it is. Is DD otherwise happy and comfortable at school? There's lots to read on the subject if you are interested.

"If you look at the other threads on here, you'll see that a great many people talk about ability tables in the classroom"

Yes, Cortina - but I would say that those people are parents, not teachers on here.

about your DD, Riven.

most teachers cringe at the HA MA LA labels applied to children by organisations such as Ofsted.

I don't talk about ability in my classroom/planning/or anything as I use the term 'performance' and always have done... I don't do it to protect children/parents but because I think performance better represents the situation.

Regardless of the terminology used, and whether or not performance is used to group children in class, most children seem to work out the strengths and weaknesses of the others in their class. I know for a fact that my DD's Reception class don't group according to performance and yet she and her friends can all give a clear and definite account of who is the best at X, Y or Z be that riding a bike, hula-hooping, reading or counting in 2s.

I agree that 'ability tables' is unhelpful but think it's naive to hope that rebranding them will somehow prevent anyone from knowing who's 'best' at something.

Yes Feenie, agreed it's the parents who usually talk about ability rather than the teachers.

That's really encouraging Mrz.

SE13 Mummy - the thing is there's no denying that they are at different levels currently my point is it should be about current levels of performance and achievement. (I realise that they will also have their strengths and weaknesses).

If we called them current attainment tables, or something similar, I think it could be helpful. It would help some realise that there weren't permanent differences, ability did not have a ceiling. Better still do away with them altogether, as Feenie says, if possible.

If you cannot assess someone's ability you cannot assess their needs.

disposing of a word is doublethink at it's most dangerous. You are trying to disappear a concept by disappearing a word.

Intelligence is not learnable. Intelligence is largely inherited. You get very few very bright parents with very stupid children and vice versa.

However, skills are learned, so you can be either very intelligent or not very intelligent and either reach, or not reach your potential depending on quality of teaching, self motivation, encouragement at home, whether the school environment suits you etc.

Issues such as dyslexia further muddy the water.

However, to say that intelligence can be learned is fundamentally far more dangerous than quibbling over semantics.

I should have added, I actually think academic "intelligence" is overrated and the focus on it as the holy grail of life attainment is wrong. There arent that many jobs where you need to be super bright. If you have common sense, a practical mind and a bit of "emotional intelligence"* that can take you a long way in life.

• used to be called "gets on well with people"

TheBride this isn't so I believe, also the genetically inherited part of intelligence is smaller than it was first thought.

Bill Lucas and Guy Claxton in New Kinds of Smart - how the science of learnable intelligence is changing education - explore it better than I can explain here.

The most important thing and what I am trying to say is 'The goal of early education (and perhaps all education) should not be seen as simply that of training brains whose basic potential is already determined. Rather the goal is to provide rich environments in which to grow better brains' (Andy Clark).

Considering that you've started a thread about ability and now you're talking about intelligence, can I have some reassurance that you do know that ability and intelligence are two completely different things?

New research is very interesting on the subject. There seems to be a lot of it.

Claxton/Lucas admit there are genetic influences on intelligence but they are very far from being a life sentence:

Behavioural geneticist Robert Plomin at Uni of London Institute of Psychiatry has identified six genes which are strongly associated with high or low measured intelligence. Taken together they apparently accounted for less just 1% in the variation of intelligence. At most the genes seemed to establish a broad 'envelope of possibility' which is heavily modified and influenced by experience.

The scientists are interested in uncovering the subtle ways in which genes get turned on or off etc in the biochemical environment in which they find themselves; and all the ways in which that bodily environment is continually being modified by experience and behaviour. There truly is no scientific justification for labelling children as having different amounts of 'intelligence' 'ability' etc.

Goes on to say that children differ in their current level of achievement and performance etc. If we group learners together it can be helpful in some instances, in athletics clubs etc, but this is a pragmatic question of how to help them improve. If you add the label 'ability' you run the risk of making fatalistic predictions about what's expected of them and how far they can go.

The book and research I've read explains that 'intelligence' is much broader than we've thought and how being aware of this can help education. It's opening my eyes.

was that a yes or a no?

colditz how would you answer that question?

I am still learning about what constitutes intelligence and ability and my views are changing. I thought ability had a ceiling and that IQ was determined from birth and there wasn't much you could do to change it.

I thought that intelligence was one-dimensional and determined pretty much by an IQ test now I see there is so much more to it than that. I thought intelligence was fixed, and teachers and educators could harness it but not change it. I thought it was all about my mind, but now I see that the body plays a part too. I thought it was only an intellectual function and so on. It's much harder to define and pin down than was first thought.

Of course ability has a frigging ceiling. I will never ever be able to fly, for example, and never would have been able to even if I had been raised by geese. Ability is an assessment of what you are currently able to do. I am not able to drive. This is not a static situation, as my ceiling has not been reached. I am not able to fly. This is a static situation. My ceiling has been reached.

And how many people who were brain injured at birth (with a subsequent low intelligence) do NOT, despite all the therapies and focused learning in the world, go on to university? Would that be all of them?

Cortina, MOST people know that you can affect intelligence with environmental factors - just look at those poor orphans found in Romania in the 90's! They can't have all been born disturbed, stunted and severely developmentally delayed - that was the result of neglect of their emotional and intellectual needs for love and stimulation.

There are people, sadly, with learning impairments or similar whose ability has a ceiling as you mentioned.

How you describe ability I would describe attainment. My current attainment level means I can't fly. I don't understand how to work an aeroplane, I don't know how. My ability, not being fixed or having a ceiling means I could! It might be tough, it might take time but I could fly!

Everyone can develop their intellectual abilities (apart from those with learning impairments), that is a fact proven by many. You can develop your verbal skills, mathematical-scientific skills, logical thinking skills.

It's about having a growth mindset. People who think that their minds are fixed are more likely to see challenges as a threat to their supposed level of ability and shy away from situations where they may look or feel stupid (Claxton).

Ability doesn't have a ceiling and that's wonderful as Dweck says 'if parents want to give their children a gift, the best thing they can do is teach their children to love challenges, be intrigued by mistakes, enjoy effort and keep on learning'. Who knows what you can achieve?