Interesting research project underway

[mystery]

Yes, it gets harder. And at some point grouping is needed. Looking at the content of the some the newish GCSE 9-1 exams and there's no way that you could put everyone through the full content.

And yes, children are aware of one another's "abilities"? Are they though? They may be aware that in the tasks they were asked to do that day some children scored higher or did it faster than others. But is that "ability"? There's time at primary school for discussion about how one can improve at school-type tasks and that just because you are faster / slower better / worse at them than little Johnny at age 7 doesn't mean that you will be better or worse at everything than little Johnny when you are 16 or an adult.

And when teachers talk about "ability", certainly at primary school it is rarely "ability" they are talking about. It's about the skills the children have here and now.

My favourite example of judgements about ability being used to limit a child's education come from a return to teaching course I went on not too long ago. During a session on lesson planning, we were given some ideal formats to use that were, according to the trainer, good examples that would ensure good teaching and also probably thrill an ofsted inspector. One of them was completed for a KS3 music lesson involving composing a piece of music. The "below average" group was allowed to use a narrow range of notes, the middle group a wider range of notes and the top group any note that they wished. It nearly made me spit out my water - and all the more so because no-one in the room including the trainer seemed to think that it was ludicrous.

[loobylou]

And yes, children are aware of one another's "abilities"? Are they though? They may be aware that in the tasks they were asked to do that day some children scored higher or did it faster than others. But is that "ability"? There's time at primary school for discussion about how one can improve at school-type tasks and that just because you are faster / slower better / worse at them than little Johnny at age 7 doesn't mean that you will be better or worse at everything than little Johnny when you are 16 or an adult.

And when teachers talk about "ability", certainly at primary school it is rarely "ability" they are talking about. It's about the skills the children have here and now.

I might not be defining ability as an educationalist would. I meant that they would come home and say that A was very good at fractions but B was really struggling with them but B was very good at art and C knew more about history than anyone else but struggled to write sentences (as an example).

[RedPanda]

When mine were doing SAT mocks (I know, I know...) the children were comparing scores in the playground even though the teacher wasn't making the results public. I suspect that children rank themselves regardless of what the teacher does or doesn't do. Who finished first? Who wrote the most? Who used wow words? Who painted the most pleasing picture? Who answered the hardest starter question? I'm sure there are some poor practices out there that exasperate the effects of comparison but to stop it all together, I'm not sure that is possible.

Anyway, the groupings employed in that class seemed to be based on ability for maths and English (top table etc.) and mixed for everything else. This was a small school with mixed age classes so I can only imagine the thought process of the (very good, in my opinion) teacher when deciding who worked with who and who got taught what.

I think the findings will be interesting and I hope they provide some answers to the problem and it not be 'just teach everyone the same thing at the same pace'. Differentiation by outcome lends itself to some subjects more than others.

Definitely interested in what this study finds and recommends.

[mystery]

Yes - you can't stop children comparing scores if you've given them scores. But usually it's the ones that feel they've done well that want to know other people's. And the ones that are not chuffed with their scores that don't really want to share. And maybe there's an age when it's appropriate to give scores regularly, if it is useful to do so, and an age when its not.

Sometimes you've got someone who just wants to know everyone's score in whatever it is to doublecheck that theirs was the best and at the same time show off. Maybe it's something that should be discussed in circle time etc at primary school? Regular tests can be agonising enough for some children without the regular dread of score sharing day. And the boaster is not learning good social skills if it's left unmentioned.

But that's a different issue from constantly being labelled, by adults, bottom group or set from a young age and everything that comes with that.

There may be a need to have different material and different tasks for some children in some subjects on some days for some part of the lesson. But it doesn't necessarily need to be done by fixed (ish) groups with different names / colours/ locations etc from year R (I've seen it then) or 1 in the primary classroom does it?

[RedPanda]

There may be a need to have different material and different tasks for some children in some subjects on some days for some part of the lesson. But it doesn't necessarily need to be done by fixed (ish) groups with different names / colours/ locations etc from year R (I've seen it then) or 1 in the primary classroom does it?

Agreed. I suspect you can save them some time and give them the answer now mystery

My original questions stands though. I was hoping Amber knew. I assumed it wasn't her research. If it is Amber, good luck.

Given this is looking at primary schools specifically, are they challenging differentiated teaching across the mixed ability class or the practice of setting in some primary schools?

By 'setting' I am referring to the fixed (ish) groups with different names / colours/ locations.

[Amber]

It isn't my research and I don't know the researchers.

are they challenging differentiated teaching across the mixed ability class or the practice of setting in some primary schools?

As I understand it they are looking to challenge the idea that it is appropriate to define 'ability' in a primary school setting (sorry, ambiguous word, I mean 'in the primary school') and therefore the notion that it is helpful, feasible, whatever, to try then to differentiate teaching according to perceived ability. This is not new - no other country that I know of seeks to differentiate by ability when children are 4, 5, 7, even 10. Study after study demonstrates that it is not a good way to raise attainment. It is, however, endemic in England so appears revolutionary to challenge it.

Btw it is not 'some primary schools'. It is virtually all primary schools. I didn't do it but I had the choice back in the day when I qualified; and my eldest two children were not subjected to it in the infants either as they were lucky enough to be taught by someone who had trained in Scandinavia. But it is prevalent from Reception and continues, often in more formalised ways, throughout almost all primary schools. It is also supported on the whole by parents, especially those whose children are on the 'top table' (hideous phrase imho) who genuinely seem to believe, often, that the brains of 'bright' children are likely to atrophy or be forever 'held back' if they are made to do the same work as children identified as 'less able'. At 4.

Interestingly (for me) recently I had occasion to learn via social media what some of the children I first taught in Reception are doing now. Some of the ones that were most definitely 'struggling' with the curriculum back then are now working as doctors, city lawyers and research scientists. And some of my 'bright little sparks' who motored on ahead and just kept coming back for more, are...not, shall we say? No link at all, imho.

[DC17C]

It isn't my research and I don't know the researchers.

are they challenging differentiated teaching across the mixed ability class or the practice of setting in some primary schools?

As I understand it they are looking to challenge the idea that it is appropriate to define 'ability' in a primary school setting (sorry, ambiguous word, I mean 'in the primary school') and therefore the notion that it is helpful, feasible, whatever, to try then to differentiate teaching according to perceived ability. This is not new - no other country that I know of seeks to differentiate by ability when children are 4, 5, 7, even 10. Study after study demonstrates that it is not a good way to raise attainment. It is, however, endemic in England so appears revolutionary to challenge it.

Btw it is not 'some primary schools'. It is virtually all primary schools. I didn't do it but I had the choice back in the day when I qualified; and my eldest two children were not subjected to it in the infants either as they were lucky enough to be taught by someone who had trained in Scandinavia. But it is prevalent from Reception and continues, often in more formalised ways, throughout almost all primary schools. It is also supported on the whole by parents, especially those whose children are on the 'top table' (hideous phrase imho) who genuinely seem to believe, often, that the brains of 'bright' children are likely to atrophy or be forever 'held back' if they are made to do the same work as children identified as 'less able'. At 4.

Interestingly (for me) recently I had occasion to learn via social media what some of the children I first taught in Reception are doing now. Some of the ones that were most definitely 'struggling' with the curriculum back then are now working as doctors, city lawyers and research scientists. And some of my 'bright little sparks' who motored on ahead and just kept coming back for more, are...not, shall we say? No link at all, imho.

This raises some excellent points...learning to cope with a bit of struggle and a few set backs is very necessary to teach a child resilience to cope with the wider world. Those for whom learning comes easy can suddenly find the world of work is not just about knowing a bunch of facts, solving a maths problem and writing a marvellous essay....but also needs a fair amount of social knowhow and other skills they might miss out on when they are racing ahead....

[mystery]

It's a fascinating piece of research. How one would do it "reliably" I haven't a clue but however it's done, hopefully it will set people thinking a bit more.

Schools are very judgey places. And I don't know why teachers feel they can judge "ability", "potential", whatever one likes to call it. Teaching is about moving students on forwards and enabling them to move on forwards for themselves. The area where good judgement is required is surely about finding out quickly where they are now and what do to move them onwards through whatever the subject is - not making huge presumptions about what a child is capable of a long time in the future.

I know the current UK system sort of makes it seem necessary - but there's something more to it than that I think.

Is grouping from very young by teachers' perceptions of ability actually supported by the majority of parents? Sad if it is.

I like the story of Thomas Edison - the "correct" version: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/thoma ... om-school/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Guest55]

I remember some research from way back on teacher expectation and pupil outcomes. Basically, from what I remember, they gave teachers a bright group and a below average group and then after a while tested them. The results matched the groups they were in but the children had all been similar ability in the first place.

So this idea is not new ...

[mystery]

Yes, there's some famous psychology experiment along the lines of telling teachers the wrong IQs for pupils and what then happens as a consequence. Can't remember it though.