Do bright children still get moved up a year to start secondary school early?

I took 11+ at 9 and moved to secondary school at 10. It was the same for my 2 siblings. They have October birthdays; mine's Feb. We went to fairly small independent schools. In my year of <60, at least three of us were up a year.

Of the people in my independent primary, half of us started secondary school early.

Academically it was fine; socially it was very hard. I was near the top of the top set for every subject. I struggled to meet the required standards for my year in PE. I wasn't allowed to aim for the standards for my age. I was bullied as I was younger and smaller than everyone else.

I think it would be highly unusual now and haven't seen it in state or Indy. I skipped a year with several in my class at my all through Indy, though. Three of us spent one year rather than 2 in a combined Y4/5 class, all summer borns. So, not due to age more that we'd done all that was required. It wasn't a massively academic school, though, and I think they moved us on because we were getting a bit bored. Worked out fine for us all and we just thought it was the norm at the time.

This happened to my sister. 2 Sep bday so got put up a year. Utter disaster. Academically she could cope but socially it was awful, not helped by just having one of those toxic year groups that every school has. The year she was put into had quite a strong Sep- Dec bday bias so most kids almost a year older and she was quite “young” ( with hindsight is likely on the spectrum).

I think now schools consider it more holistically and that is a good thing. My ds is September and I thank my lucky stars he wasn’t 10 days older as I think he’d have struggled . Conversely dd is late august and completely fine.

life is long. I don’t really see the point of rushing through school just to get one more year of retirement at the end.

Just checked, the local girls' state grammar still allows it. The girl must have the support of her primary school and score in the top 50% of eligible applicants.

In state schools? No, absolutely not.

It can be a day's difference between a September child skipping a year and an August child in the year above. Or if you can have an 364 days age range at reception then is 365 days or 500 or 600 days really a huge difference at year 7?

The local girls' grammar allows children to start a year early, not sure of criteria. I don't see a problem with just one year, they are allowing summer born children to be kept back a year now.

I know a boy who was moved up a year in a private prep, and was still top of that year academically.

His parents weren't happy with that, because they wanted him in the correct year group, but still have the right academic stretch.

He's now at a very high performing London day secondary school, in the correct year.

So, yes, private schools still seem prepared to do it.

One of my dc did maths lessons with Y6 from when he was in Y3. He went to secondary at the right age though, as we wanted to prioritise his social skills: I think the ability to interact and belong to your peer group is more important than early academic success.

My DD and the other scholarship pupils were put up a year at prep school but were told they were not allowed to sit the Common Entrance or move on to senior until they were the appropriate age. The prep school wanted them to stay for another year which was crazy as it would have meant repeating the year with pupils who were previously in the class below. We opted out at that stage and went elsewhere.

I don't think it's a thing now. It was considered for DS1 in primary school but I was reluctant as he was emotionally immature.

DH skipped a year when he was at grammar school in the 1960s.

Ultimately it meant he went to uni as a young 17 year old and didn't make any real difference long term.

My DF went to grammar a year early, but that was over 60 years ago! One girl at my (shite, state) comp got held back a year. Never known of anyone being put ahead in the state sector in recent times.

I did my O Levels and A Levels in the mid 1980s in a state grammar school. As far as I'm aware we were all in the correct year for our age, except for one girl whose birthday was in September 1st. She was in my year and should have been in the year below.

I've not been aware of anyone in my DCs primary/comprehensive schools who were in the 'wrong' year.

DC2 was a late bloomer and summer born and would have benefited enormously from being in the year below.

I don't think it is. I moved up to secondary at the 'right' age (in 1997) but was 'ahead' a year in primary school throughout juniors. This meant I had to do year 6 twice over which was tedious and frustrating for me and the other child who was my age. I'm not sure why the school or our parents thought it was a good idea as it had no affect on us moving up to secondary a year earlier. Perhaps that was the original plan and it was scuppered?

Now my own children are in primary and 1 moving to secondary this year and as far as I know from our school and others in the area no child is moved up early, or is able to skip a year once they've started. Some schools do support children doing a few GCSEs a year early (ie year 10 sitting them) but only in exceptional circumstances.

This happened to DH when a child at an independent school. He took his A levels two years early and then decided to work for a couple of years before he went to University.

We did very occasionally only half a dozen over 25 years working in higher education have students who had taken their A levels early arrive to study at the University I worked in. It was a nightmare because they were obviously underage for alcohol and classed as minors.

I don't think it's done in the state system, but may be done in the private still.

My experience was that of the children who moved up, they were almost all at the older end of the year (September/October) birthdays and they coped fine if they were tall for their age (especially boys) and sociable. Those who stood out height wise or struggled with friendships found it much harder.
Some were put up for convenience (eg they were at a small village school and had been the oldest in the school since year 4, or had moved area and their parents thought they'd be better not only having one year at a new school before moving. They coped as well as those who were put up because they were bright.

GDST schools used to enter pupils a year early for the entrance exam. 1 person in my year was a year ahead and 1 person I knew in the year above I'd been at another school with but had then gone to the junior school.
The girl in my year then got a free 11 plus place as she was considered to be at a primary school in the borough. This seemed rather unfair to me, as the family were well off.
Back end of the 60s.

I don’t think it’s ever been a “thing”. Your school sounds like the exception.
Having said that, one of my best friends at school was out of year. She thinks her mother made a mistake filling in the entry form so she started in the wrong year group in Junior school and moved up with it. She was also tall for her age and bright. It was a voluntary aided school that served as the local Catholic girls’ grammar school, so there was a problem with the 11+, which they solved by putting her in the grammar stream and having her take the exam when she was eligible a year later than the rest of us. This was in the early 1960s.

If you went to private school it is not even remotely comparable

No. Sats and exam prep has scuppered all that way too much to put into the curriculum now to be jumping years

In 19 years at my state comprehensive school we have had 1 child do this and his parents had to go to court to force the LA to allow it!

It wasn’t a thing in my (girls) indie, but so knew a couple of boys at the equivalent boys indie who had been moved up a year. Both bright enough, but neither were stellar bright.

My Dad was a year ahead of his age as well, but he was a forces child and moved around so much I think he just ended up out of year.

I'm not sure about your perception that it was ever 'a thing' .
Obviously, it must have been in the school you went to, but I mean for the population as a whole.

As others have said there is more of a push from some parents to start their dc late, to try to give them an advantage by being oldest in the year (below the one they should be in) rather than youngest in the year (they should be in).

I went up in a state school about 40 (eek) years ago. Probably an easier decision for them as I was being bullied in the year I was in anyway (I did better in the year above).

You can run into problems at the other end of education though- by the age of 15 I'd turned into a rebel who'd already done my GCSEs and wanted to leave school, but I legally couldn't until 16. That might be another reason why they stopped doing it.