So you have a primary classroom.
You set it up: 15 tables, 30 seats.
You organise it into table groups of 6. Or maybe even 4 if you’re really radical.
Then you think about behaviour management. You need to show the children who’s in control. That child can’t go next to that child. No. Those three won’t work together. Yes. Maybe she’ll help him to focus. Oh – he’ll have to go in the middle so any inspector won’t get to him.
What about ability? Now these 6 are the top group. Yes I know that one isn’t quite up there, but maybe she’ll be dragged along by the coattails of the others. There are the middle tables. And there’s the SEN group. Yup, she’s low ability too, she can sit with the SEN. Yes I know he’s ASD, but he’ll be best with the SEN group to get the extra support. Those ones are low too, there’s not quite 6 of them though. I know. I’ll put that middle ability child there. What’s her name? I always forget her.
The problem with levels and the best-fit approach that I wrote about yesterday, was that you could have children with radically different abilities working on the same learning. For example, say I have some level 2 children in my Year 4 class. I could put them all on the same table and teach them some level 3 objectives to move them on. But some of them would already know some of that level 3 stuff. And some others would have gaps in their level 2 knowledge meaning that actually they need to learn the level 2 stuff first.
And what’s even worse is that by setting up an ability group based inaccurately on prior learning, you limit those pupils to only make small steps from their supposed starting points, rather than having an ambitious end point for what the pupils could achieve.
And I’m not just speaking theoretically here. Teaching in year 4 this year, I have picked up a class where there was a fixed ‘bottom group’ and ‘next-to-bottom group’. Instead of fixing the groups at the start of the year, me and the teacher I job-share with (I’m a deputy head, so not in class full time) have changed the groups (often on a daily basis) based on their learning the day before, not on some broad brush-stroke academic level. This has meant that we can follow up concepts that have not been learned the next day and keep pushing the children on. The consequence of this is that 3 children who had been labelled as ‘SEN’ are no longer – they have moved rapidly towards the expected standard for Year 4. Don’t get me wrong, there are still genuine SEN children within the class who really struggle to make progress for a whole range of reasons. But it is not right for us to lump a load of children together just because it makes our classroom management more straightforward.
Right now, as we hurtle to what looks like a fiasco-of-an-end-of-year assessment across the country, I think we are right on the knife edge between a fantastic, aspirational curriculum and a progress-measures-led doom as school leaders rapidly reinvent levels so that they can justify their own organisations. If the latter happens, pity the supposedly less-able children who simply had the misfortune of being put in the wrong group when they were 5.