Apologies to Cambridge matmos.

[grovel]

I just loved being number 1000. Such power!

Oh piffle to governors speaking 'off the record'. They shouldn't speak off the record at all, not if they've any proper sense of duty.

& Russians accuses me of sweeping generalisations?
As far as I can see, all the things you accuse me of being 100% certain of have been things I have mentioned as being my experiences, possible tendencies or possibilities I have been willing to explore.
If nobody ever questions any of their experiences nobody can ever learn from them! I would still like to know how general musical assessment (my way) would disadvantage a dyspraxic child. You accuse so much, but I've yet to hear your experiences!

Pugs you need to check the dictionary. You cannot defend the generalisations you made as being 'your own experiences'. You seem to get the wrong end of the stick a lot of the time. If you can't understand that testing fine motor skills (before any instrumental lessons have ever been given) will disadvantage dysoraxic children, even musically gifted dyspraxic children then you shouldn't be evaluating children in an educational setting.

Rolls eyes

What on earth is that supposed to mean?

pugs there may be sound reasons why you didn't pass the 11+.

That Russian seems desperate to believe that I would do a musical aptitude test purely by testing fine motor skills when I specifically said it was one of a number fun tests I would use!

Are you now retreating from your complete misunderstanding of how state education works? A gracious person would acknowledge your mistake so you don't mislead other people.

I think Pugsandseals may have a bit of a point if she is driving at cognitive bias playing a part in identifying which child can go so far. I will attempt to describe below:

It is true that the NC system essentially divides the cohort up into high, middle and low attainers/ability groups - although a good school will expect all groups to make as much progress as possible it is true to say that the high ability group will be expected to get higher academic results than the low ability group.

Our school is extremely large and 'all through' from nursery to sixth form. It is extremely well regarded with outstanding teaching and outstanding Ofsted reports in both Infant, Junior and Senior departments. I can't think of a parent who wouldn't recommend our school for many good reasons. In our school the high, middle and low ability children are essentially identified by the end of KS1 - if not before. CATS/PIPS type tests and SATS, both tests and ongoing teacher assessments are used to identify the high, middle and low ability. By the end of KSI impressions have generally been formed of the children some are 'quick' and some are 'slow' some are obliging and some are more challenging etc. We would all make these judgements as it is only human to do so. All the interactions are reduced to a manageable number of characteristics. Impressions are so formed and once a child is seen as bright that judgement is not usually rescinded - especially when you have the data to back up your judgement.

At the end of KS1 predictions are made for the end of KS2. Our school believe in setting for Maths by ability. One of mine was barely 6 when they were set for Maths. Because they were a 2a at the end of KS1 they were placed in a set with other children who were also working at a level 2a. The expectations and trajectory for them was not the same as those working at 3c or 3b etc at this time. There were 8 sets and each set worked at a slightly different pace from top to bottom.

I went to a talk about the maths setting and was told that those who were predicted a low level 4 at the end of KS2 might expect to use different calculation methods etc. So judgements and expectations were alive and kicking. By the end of Y3 my child was working at a level 3b - those in the 3 maths sets above were working at a faster pace with higher expectations and I imagine the highest ability group were then around a 4b or even higher by the end of Y3.

In Y4 my child was working at a 3a in the first term and I was told that they were predicted a 5c by the end of Y6 if all was well and good - very good for a child that was a 2a at the end of KS1. I was also told that they believed strongly in setting by ability again and that as most were expected to be a 4b by the end of Year 6 I should be delighted by that level of progress.

I asked the question why not a level 6 at the end of Y6 if ability had developed and warranted it? No reply was given. It's clear my child wasn't marked out as level 6 material.

Does any of the above matter? The jury is out for me. I think some can be penalised by the system but it's those at the margins. They do move children between sets but from what I can tell you have to be truly exceptional to warrant a move as it's tricky to do so administratively and as they rarely move children down (perhaps as CATS tests etc show they have the requisite ability to stay in a higher set?) there isn't always the space.

You can see that those who started at 3c on entry to KS2 in a system like this may have been advantaged? They would definitely be in set 1 or 2 and working with high expectations in mind. KS2 results influence GCSE results and so on and so forth. Those that were clued up in our school got on the Kumon bandwagon our used tutoring to get children up to a 3c where they were at the margins. Still not sure where I sit with it all? If intellect is fixed then I expect they are all pretty much where they should be and you can't have a system that works for everyone perfectly? Surely expectations and predictions are made in every school?

Just to add I mean that one of mine was barely 7 (not 6) when set for Maths on entering Y3.

Again above meant KS2 results influence GCSE predictions not results.

But Gill, that sort of rigidity is what pugs says she left the state system to avoid! Now here you are describing it in a private setting. I cannot imagine circumstances where it is a good idea to set such young children so rigidly.particularly with a subject like maths, which comes later to some children than others.

And I agree about perception and living up/down to expectations. Once you have been labelled clever or not clever, it's very hard to unlabel yourself. That's why rigid setting is such a bad idea.

Is Gill's school state or independent? Ofstead which she mentions don't inspect independent schools.

I assumed it must be private- I don't think there are any state nursery to GCSE schools are there? But the OFSTED thing puzzled me too. I thought she must have meant the Independent school inspector people. Because I don't think OFSTED would take kindly to the rigidity she describes. Or the self fulfilling prophecies that are being created.

Our nearest big town is a seperate LA from the rest of the county. Apparently no school has a 6 th form and at least one school goes from reception to yr 11. I was also talking to head of a very large primary 850 pupils and he too is hoping to take merge with a local comp.

Could you say what town? Understand if you'd rather not.

They've got around the rigidity of the setting by allowing those who are quick on the uptake to go into other (higher) sets if they grasp a particular concept well etc. But essentially the children are set by ability. Does this not happen in other settings? I imagine that data at the end of KS1 is used to make predictions for KS2 and children are set by ability whether this is formally in maths sets or more informally at table settings in mixed ability classes? Current literature relating to schools is saturated with encouragement for teachers to attribute levels of ability to their students and teach them accordingly too.

I understood you to say that it was very unusual for a child to move sets? Glad you're back- could you say whether you're talking about state or private? I didn't think there were any nursery-GCSE state schools.

My DC were set from year 3.
But it was very flexible, in that you could be in set 1 for French and set 4 for maths.
It was also constantly reassessed, with plenty of movement.

It worked very well, but required a lot of effort on the shcool's part.

The idea seeker is that children can move up and down - if performance warrants it - through the sets. At the end of each academic year the whole year group is rejigged sets wise too - although things will never change that much. If you believe intellect is pretty much fixed and examinable by NFER type tests then no one is expecting too many surprises. I think as the year group is larger than average it may be the best way of ordering things although not perfect (but which system is?).

State or private?

It's a British international school - essentially a state school with the teachers universally from the state sector previously and most children (where they've been to school previously) originally from UK state schools.

Children do move sets but movements are quite rare, they believe that you can set by ability and by and large they can gauge it accurately. I think a child has to be extraordinary to get moved up personally - every top table within each set has able children upon it that will be taken as far as they can. If a child is at the margins though they will miss out on more difficult work and a faster pace (and slightly different trajectory). Teachers say though with maths consolidation is key and it's not a race.

If the children are regularly reassessed and moved up and down as appropriate, and if, as you say, even the outliers in each set are adequately provided for, I 'm not sure how you think that equates to pugs' claim that in her child's school, the children were set at 5, and this assessment impacted in what GcSES they took.nit seems completely different to me. Unless I am missing something?

Just curious really what is the difference between setting and streaming? I've PMd you seeker.

Streaming means putting a child in the same classes for everything, based often on an assessment in one subject. So a child who was very good at maths, for example, might be put in the "top" stream for everything, even though they were less good at French. And vice versa- you could end up in the lower stream for everything because your maths was shaky. Not considered a good idea, for obvious reasons but it still happens. Setting is by individual subject - so you can be set I for French and set 7 for maths.