A failing English school has become the first in the nation to group students according to ability rather than age:

The 1,100 pupils starting the new academic year at Bridgemary community school in Gosport, Hampshire - still regarded by some as the local sink school - were for the first time being taught in mixed-age classes for every subject.

Pupils have been assessed through a series of internal and externally validated tests to determine their entry to one of five levels of ability which match a government-agreed framework, and will be subjected to monitoring.

In some cases extremely able 12-year-olds are beginning GCSE courses alongside pupils two years older - at level two. Each child has been given an individual learning programme attached to a timetable, with the new arrangements designed to cater for different abilities.

Critics of the school's determined approach fear that grouping students by ability may traumatize older children who are under-performing: "There are dangers that social difficulties can arise when you mix 11-year-olds with 15-year-olds. For example, if a 15-year-old was sent down to work with 11-year-olds that could lead to a serious loss of self-esteem and would be seen by peers as a sign of failure," said Steve Sinnott, general secretary of the National Union of Teachers. The Guardian does not mention whether Sinnott had anything to say about the damage--not only to one's self-esteem, but also to one's prospects in life--of not placing struggling students in level-appropriate classes where they can acquire the skills and knowledge that they lack.

I look at it this way: in junior high I was an incurable geek. I had no friends--at all. Therefore, if I had been grouped according to my ability instead of my age, what is the worst that could have happened? I wouldn't have any friends? At least I would have found school more interesting.

And as for the self-esteem of the 15-year-olds, I would think that if you are 15 years old but only studying on an 11-year-old level, you SHOULD be embarrassed. Maybe that would inspire you to work your way to a more age-appropriate level.

Of course, the proponents of self-esteem first wouldn't agree with me on that. Being embarrassed is always psychologically damaging in their book, never an inspiration to improve oneself.

So it is better to be a high self-esteem illiterate than go through some embarrassment and actually learn the things one will need to feed oneself in one's adulthood?

I taught at a private school in Tampa, Fl organized in exactly this fashion. We didn't accept students performing below grade level (it was a school for academically talented students), so we avoided some self-esteem related issues, but, of course, the goal of our school was more academic than psychological.

There are more serious consequences that aren't being considered. I agree that a 15-year-old should be embarassed, but when paired with the advanced 11-year-old what happens? The older student might lash out at the younger student(s). Bullying may be encouraged by such a program--there's usually a big physical difference between 11 and 15.

I'm all for level appropriate classes--doesn't that usually happen in high school with "college tracks" and "dummy tracks" (I hope that doesn't hurt anyone's self-esteem)? Based on tests and previous performance students are usually assigned to specific levels.

Also, while humiliation may motivate some students, it may also cause some to give up and accept their fate--most students recognize when they're in the "dummy tracks." For them acquiring the skills no longer seems possible.

It's a difficult issue. We certainly need to hold standards high for students, but how do we do that without making success seem impossible. Bolstering student self-esteem at any cost isn't the way, but neither is ignoring it.

The problem with the self-esteem argument--and the problem with the self-esteem movement--is that people like Sinnott think that self-esteem should be automatic, that it shouldn't come from anywhere, as a result of doing something that you should esteem yourself for doing. Reading three years below grade level is not a self-esteem-worthy accomplishment, and no one "deserves" to feel self-esteem for no reason.

I once went to a retirement party for a teacher who had taught high school for 30-odd years. Her reflection at the end of those years is that she had been an unwitting and unwilling part of a conspiracy to "raise a generation of mental midgets who feel good about themselves." But it's not just academic life that's affected by false self-esteem propaganda. With so many students today being fed the line that they should feel good about themselves no matter what they do, is it any surprise that some of them are capitalizing upon a tragic natural disaster to steal electronic equipment and shoot at Army relief helicopters?

A kid performing three or four years below grade level needs intervention. Does he have emotional or physical problems or is he lazy? Can the school do anything about any of these problems? Schools can't do much for the first two, but it can and should for the third. Do schools use any disensentives to combat laziness? If a student doesn't work hard, there *should* be consequences. If a kid is working hard and is several years behind, he *is* leaning-impaired and needs to be separated from those who can do grade-level work. This may be the first motivational step schools have considered in years for those who aren't self-starters.

This is actually a very good thing. This could be (finally) a way for the United States to rebuild its education system. If you teach students by ability level, than age range you will avoid having high school students who can not read or write, and at the same time, you will have students that are motivated and excell being able to build a network amoung those who are just as motivated or gifted, further reinforcing their motives. This could only motivate students, and for those who are at a lower level than others, it is finally the step needed to make sure that they get the help that they deserve!

From my experience, Bullies have the highest self-esteem in school.

Meanwhile, I took senior level classes as a Freshman in High School and had very, very low self-esteem.

But, I had self-respect, which was very different - and more usefulm since high self-respect means you know your where you are strong AND where you are weak.

Bullies had very little self-respect.

The problems with doing this in the US (or anywhere else).

How do you determine what is grade level? How many souther states have been caught using tracking (which is what this is) to racially segregate within a school)? How many politicans' kids will end up in advanced classes even though they do not deserve it? How many children of blue collar parents will not get into the advanced tracks because their parents do not know how to do it?

It should be called "levels of performance", not "levels of ability." The first implies that you get there as a result of work; the second that it is a fixed and unchangeable status in life.

Peter Drucker once remarked that it is irresponsible for managers to presume to judge "potential", as opposed to judging actual performance. The same is true for educators--indeed more true, because of the age factor.

Also, any tracking based on performance assessments should be for specific subjects, rather than for the overall curriculum.

I wish my school instituted this system. The self-esteem proponents are going into overkill. Last project I had was a pass-fail egg drop project. However, instead of grading it on a pass-fail basis, teachers were encouraged to use "success" and "less success." Too much self-esteem has led to students who are blind of their own abilities. We have people who do not deserve to be taking Honors and AP level courses at all, but our school's overly-inclusive atmosphere still allows them to do so.
As for the argument that self-esteem builds confidence, self-esteem and self-confidence are inversely related. Self-esteem is promoted by a nanny administration who pretty much appeases every single kid's needs. Confidence can only be built by venturing outside the comfort zone. Don't know about anyone else, but my school promotes a perfectly comfortable atmosphere to study in. By that I mean if I get a 23/100 on a test, a teacher would probably give me a D because "he/she won't let me fail," erm, sorry he/she "won't let me have less success."

"success" and "less success."

Sam, I am sitting here laughing sadly. I'm glad you see through this but I'm worried about your classmates who may not. I'm actually more worried about people like me (and apparently you) who may end up being the boss of people like any of your classmates who may not see through this. God help us.