Go to navigation
It is currently Thu Nov 15, 2018 8:21 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Nov 15, 2016 12:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 9:56 pm
Posts: 8916
Surely table setting has faded out in some schools with the new curriculum where as many as children as possible are supposed to be doing work of the expected standard for that year group?

I have always tried to keep track of which group my children are in for reading, spelling, writing, maths etc as our school used to group them quite inflexibly and give different classwork and homework to each group.

The school became more and more secretive about it - e.g. by not sitting the group together, nor giving it a name.

It was a nightmare each time a child ended up in a mediocre group (which tended to happen at some point in KS1 as they'd sometimes put children who put their hands up and answered quickly into higher groups than ones that didn't make an impact in lessons) as you'd have to do catch-ups at home when you realised they weren't covering the maths or English curriculum in the way they could have done and you'd go through **** and high water trying to discuss with a defensive headteacher what could be done about it.

Such a relief to be out and almost out of the primary phase at this particular school.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 15, 2016 4:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 12:42 pm
Posts: 3826
Location: Chelmsford and pleased
Differentiation or deprivation?

Mixed tables allow children to flourish - support given when required to bring some up to speed. When we stopped the practice of 'setting' we saw that the 'faster aquirers of knowledge' developed more confidence as they were allowed to fail occasionally. The slower acquirers were not always the same children and often not those predicted by the teacher. Children, parents and teachers were happier with the results, although parents and teaching assistants needed convincing of the value. The TAs were worried that their children would suffer, but it gave them a wider variety of children to work with.

Once parents saw the style of teaching tools and understood that their children could be supported / challenged then they too were happy - well as happy as a school full of parents ever is. :mrgreen: (So pleased to be working in a university now rather than being a head teacher.)

The aim was to provide a 'low floor - high ceiling' approach to learning. Entry points that meant all could be successful and opportunities for those that need challenge.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 15, 2016 4:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 8241
Location: Essex
moved wrote:
Differentiation or deprivation?

Mixed tables allow children to flourish - support given when required to bring some up to speed. When we stopped the practice of 'setting' we saw that the 'faster aquirers of knowledge' developed more confidence as they were allowed to fail occasionally. The slower acquirers were not always the same children and often not those predicted by the teacher. Children, parents and teachers were happier with the results, although parents and teaching assistants needed convincing of the value. The TAs were worried that their children would suffer, but it gave them a wider variety of children to work with.

Once parents saw the style of teaching tools and understood that their children could be supported / challenged then they too were happy - well as happy as a school full of parents ever is. :mrgreen: (So pleased to be working in a university now rather than being a head teacher.)

The aim was to provide a 'low floor - high ceiling' approach to learning. Entry points that meant all could be successful and opportunities for those that need challenge.


Lovely - so long as the default help for those who need it is a teacher / TA / parent helper and not the 'quicker' children in the group. I'm all for them being used as helpers occasionally, but not as a replacement for 'proper' help for those that need it, or for it to be something to keep the more able ones occupied rather than giving them a bit of adult guidance (or just something else to be trying) of their own.

_________________
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.Groucho Marx


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 15, 2016 5:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 2:32 pm
Posts: 7276
Location: East Kent
moved wrote:
Differentiation or deprivation?

Mixed tables allow children to flourish - support given when required to bring some up to speed. When we stopped the practice of 'setting' we saw that the 'faster aquirers of knowledge' developed more confidence as they were allowed to fail occasionally. The slower acquirers were not always the same children and often not those predicted by the teacher. Children, parents and teachers were happier with the results, although parents and teaching assistants needed convincing of the value. The TAs were worried that their children would suffer, but it gave them a wider variety of children to work with.

Once parents saw the style of teaching tools and understood that their children could be supported / challenged then they too were happy - well as happy as a school full of parents ever is. :mrgreen: (So pleased to be working in a university now rather than being a head teacher.)

The aim was to provide a 'low floor - high ceiling' approach to learning. Entry points that meant all could be successful and opportunities for those that need challenge.


I couldn't have put it any better. Absolutely!

:D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 15, 2016 7:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 12:42 pm
Posts: 3826
Location: Chelmsford and pleased
ToadMum wrote:
moved wrote:
Differentiation or deprivation?

Mixed tables allow children to flourish - support given when required to bring some up to speed. When we stopped the practice of 'setting' we saw that the 'faster aquirers of knowledge' developed more confidence as they were allowed to fail occasionally. The slower acquirers were not always the same children and often not those predicted by the teacher. Children, parents and teachers were happier with the results, although parents and teaching assistants needed convincing of the value. The TAs were worried that their children would suffer, but it gave them a wider variety of children to work with.

Once parents saw the style of teaching tools and understood that their children could be supported / challenged then they too were happy - well as happy as a school full of parents ever is. :mrgreen: (So pleased to be working in a university now rather than being a head teacher.)

The aim was to provide a 'low floor - high ceiling' approach to learning. Entry points that meant all could be successful and opportunities for those that need challenge.


Lovely - so long as the default help for those who need it is a teacher / TA / parent helper and not the 'quicker' children in the group. I'm all for them being used as helpers occasionally, but not as a replacement for 'proper' help for those that need it, or for it to be something to keep the more able ones occupied rather than giving them a bit of adult guidance (or just something else to be trying) of their own.


If the classroom is discursive the 'quicker' children will support those who are slower but the 'slower' also need the opportunity to support the quicker. When checking each other's work one of my children (SEN register) who struggled to get all of her sentences in order remarked that the child's work (one of the strongest creative writers) lacked full stops. She was absolutely correct and that was his target for the following piece of work.

Teachers have to manage it well. There is a huge amount of learning involved in being able to explain your thinking to another. This is where a mastery curriculum comes into its own.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 12, 2017 6:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 4:25 pm
Posts: 2724
Really like this approach Moved, you are a big loss to primary.

The thing I hate about ability grouping is it starts so early. This means that children grouped as early as Year 1 based on their EYFS results often end up grouped by age or parental input. Targets are then set based on these early results and it takes a brave teacher to ignore school ethos and attempt to improve the lot of those children deemed 'low ability' or push those 'middle abilities' further and persh the thought not push a 'high ability' just because they were born in September or came from a socio/econimically favourable home where they entered school already having been 'taught' skills well in advance of their peers i.e nothing to do with natural 'ability.' Parents bemoan the fact that their 'high ability ' children aren't being stretched but in many schools they are the only ones benefitting from the sytem, apart from, as you rightly mentioned, this far too often seen inability to accept failure.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 6:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 02, 2014 5:16 pm
Posts: 243
Children are not stupid. They know they are being graded and sorted. This is highlighted even more in small primary schools with mixed year classes. The year R/1 split was particularly traumatic for some parents, with accusations and recriminations from those whose children were not "promoted" out of the "baby class" (their words, not mine). One mum even swapped schools. As someone above said, I ask who they are sitting with for whether we are still top table. But it's not just about ability; top table invariably avoids those who disrupt the class with behavioural issues.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 6:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 9:59 am
Posts: 2442
Sparklecat wrote:
But it's not just about ability; top table invariably avoids those who disrupt the class with behavioural issues.

That's not how they did it at my son's primary. They often had a child who could not concentrate with those who could. I can only presume that it was so that the child would not engage in conversations/disruptive behaviour, etc. This was achieved and was better for the class as a whole, but the other children sitting at the table found it difficult to concentrate.

Salsa


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 8:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 02, 2014 5:16 pm
Posts: 243
My daughter spent the best part of a year sat next to the rowdiest boy in the class on home table, because she was the only one who could calm him down. Great for the teacher, but not so good for my child. Inevitably it ended up in tears and a swap.

For me, the best thing about grammar will be an atmosphere where most children want to learn. Not naive enough to think there won't be social or behavioural issues, but the really difficult cases will be elsewhere. If she passes, I'm delighted there are one or two children we will never have to deal with again.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 1:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 9:57 am
Posts: 350
Am interested in Moved's comments regarding class work being marked by children of differing abilities. We've had issues with my daughter having work incorrectly marked by another child in her class. While I understand how cross-marking spelling work or maths answers, can easily be verified, there seems to be more potential for issue with comprehension based work. The child which marks my daughter's work often marks her paper down, and she often has to dispute this with little success.
There seems to be little recourse for teacher intervention, before the scores are all logged and the lesson ends.
I think cross marking can work in certain situations, but certainly needs closer monitoring than seems to be happening with my daughter's class! What happened to the days when teachers marked pupils work?? Or am I really behind with the times.. :shock:


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
CALL 020 8204 5060
   
Privacy Policy | Refund Policy | Disclaimer | Copyright © 2004 – 2018