Question for mrz and anyone else who'd like to give their opinion

[bonbons]

At my ds school they have 2 small classes per year group. Supposedly these classes are mixed ability, but they have just been mixed up, for September term.

Now from my knowledge of the children's ability there is the able class and the not so able class.

This is for Y1 - Would it be better to be bottom of the able class or top of the not so able class, for confidence of a boy, in their development?

My DS is top of the bottom group. It has been discussed with his teacher as he is at the point where he's ready to move up, but he is likely to lose confidence and feel overwhelmed if he does.

So we have agreed that it is better for him to stay at the top of the bottom group and is being given extension books.

That's very interesting - thanks for that TTTT.

Sorry MaamRuby that was probably the wrong way to describe it, but that is how the classes have been mixed, you have the ones who are getting on well in all areas, and then the other class, who are maybe not at the same level, whether they are young for year, emerging special needs, or just not clicked yet.

But of course there has to be those that fall in the middle, and I'm unsure whether its best to be at the top of the class, to give confidence, or to suffer confidence issues and be bottom of the class, but maybe get more incentive (I don't know whether that's right or not) to stretch to be with the others in class.

As you can probably gather my ds is the middle of the road.

are you sure that's what's happened? i.e. 'able' and 'not so able' class

as in our primary when it became clear that the randomly assigned reception classes had in effect become a 'top' and 'bottom' set, the classes were mixed up again for y1 to even things out (although the class with the more experienced teacher had more of the challenging kids)

Not officially sure, but the classes were slightly biased with 'able' and 'not so able', and the top few of the then mixed class of 'not so able' has moved to the 'able' and the bottom few of the 'able' has moved to the other class.

So it's even more pronounced now, than it was previously. Rather than the other way round, of dissolving the difference.

I would suspect it depends on the child? My DS, for example really lacks confidence in his abilities. It would be much better for him to be top of the bottom class. In fact I could see that if he were bottom of the top class he might well just give up.
But I could see that different types of children might be stimulated to great things by being bottom of the top class.

Personally I wouldn't be happy with the idea of classes split on "ability" as it widens the gulf between children rather than narrowing it.
If you are in the position where it is happening I would say it really depends on the child which will suit. Some children will gain confidence from being top while others will realise they have been placed in the less "able" class and it can have the opposite effect.

In my school (I teach Y5) we have two classes in each year group which are randomly assigned in reception and then stay together as a class until Y6. However we set the children in KS2 for maths. You always get those children who fall in the middle of the split, and we make the decision which set to put them in entirely depending on their personality. Some children thrive when they are at the bottom of the top set, they see it as a challenge and work really hard to keep up. However you also get children who just can't cope with being "the worst" at something and are much happier and more confident being the best in the lower set.
I would go in and chat to the teacher - you know your child best and what woudl suit them.

Interesting question, I was seen as a sensitive child I think and always put in the lower group in the hope that being the 'best' would give me confidence.

It had the opposite effect, I believed others thought I wasn't bright or capable and I lost confidence. When I was at secondary school I was in the bottom O'level set - presumably because they still had this belief. Whilst in set 4 I beat everyone in set 1 in every exam and got an A at O'level (before A *s ). This still didn't give me confidence, why didn't the teachers believe in me I wondered? I must really be a bit stupid etc.

I think working with a higher achieving group would have increased my skills and meant that I might have aimed a bit higher with where I applied to Uni etc.

This has given me food for thought. My ds is 'bottom' of the able class, and I think this is probably the right place for him with the comments on here.

Only because he takes the easy option, for example, his teacher asked him if he'd like to move up a reading level - his response 'oh no that requires more work'. I said to her please don't ask him if you think he'd cope with next level, just move him up, and he probably won't even realise straight away. Which she did and he didn't notice, until he said 3 weeks later these are a different colour to the ones I was reading previously!

I just wondered if it would knock his confidence if he was behind, but I think I will monitor the situation but let it ride for the time being.

Are you absolutely sure OP? I don't think it's possible to split by ability in YR-Y1, particularly across the board. Is it just your perception, playground jungle drums, or have you been told this officially?

My perspective - based on FP grading (the foundation thing 1-9) of the year, and the reading levels.

How do you know the FP scores, bonbons?

And as for reading levels.... early readers aren't always the best readers at the end of Year 1/2. Steady progression often leads to much better comprehension.

It's a tick chart on the wall.

What - all areas?!

If the school is displaying a "tick chart" on the wall they are in breech of confidentiality. I'm surprised someone hasn't told them to remove it!

And do many parents stand in front of it working out the FP of the new Y1 classes?

I think you should ask the teacher whether they are splitting by points, and mention that you'd made the assumption from her chart on the wall! Then perhaps mention that you don't want other parents seeing your child's FP scores.

If it turns out they are splitting by points, I'd make a complaint, because that is just plain stupid.

It is a well-researched fact that FS profile points bear little relation to NC levels. We are having big discussions about this at the moment at school, and we are currently replacing woolly FS profile objectives with accountable ones. (At the moment, our county moderated FS is predicting 91% L3 readers in Y2.)

I hadn't realised it wasn't the 'done' thing. I've not noticed parents round it, it's in the classroom, just amongst all the other bumph for the teacher, you know who does what after school activity, music lesson etc.

I wonder if they are not in relation if it doesn't matter if that's how the class has been split as it will end up being mixed class ability anyway.

This is the information provided to heads by the NAHT

? There is ongoing research into the relationship between EYFSP and KS1 outcomes, and it would appear that some of the links are spurious.
Any correlation it would appear, is currently insecure.