Be honest… would you be ok with your child in a classroom like this?! Apparently common in state sector

[Mrppp]

our daughter is due to start school next September. We learned today that the classes are merged from ages 5 to 9. So 5 and 6 year olds in one class, 7 and 8 in another etc. This means in some instances children with be two years apart, depending when they are born, but in the same class?

surely this is crazy? Development is huge over a year at that age?

In my primary school all classes were 2 years. It was great as you had friends a year older and a year younger, as well as your own age. It reduced bullying and unnecessary competition. The older ones help the younger ones, then the next year the youngest get to do the same. It made the school really friendly and inclusive.
It might not work for everyone but I think it's brilliant.

I don't see how they can be 2 years apart? In state schools anyone born after September has to wait until the following September to start school so yes there are some kids close to 1 year older than their peers but how is it possible for them to be 2 years older in same class?

Does this only happen in state schools? Private schools this doesn't happen?

My DC school was small rural and set up this way.
It's great! The lessons are structured for the range, you get a broad scope and who is working at what level becomes less important so the kid who was called the 'class thicky' in my day isn't standing out, and the high flyers don't get held back as the teachers are skilled at providing tiers to work at, in fact my Ds who was a high flyer got loads of skill bedding in as they supported younger kids and there is no better practice for reinforcing your new knowledge than explaining it to someone else - the teachers made good use of this and not to any pupil detriment.
I'm a fan.

I'm 35 and was in composite classes a couple of years of primary (and I didn't grow up in a rural area, this was in an area that's basically a suburb of a city, a 45 min bus journey out from the centre, although in a different council area). It wasn't detrimental to my learning at all and I don't see why it would be (we were split into groups for language, maths etc. according to ability anyway).
Now bringing my kids up in a rural town and all 3 have been in composite classes at some point during primary, especially my youngest whose year group is very small (only 9 of them). They're thriving at school. I've not noticed any difference in their learning or happiness between the years they've been in composite classes and the years they've been in a class with only kids from their year group.

My children are in a small school with years Reception to Yr2 together, years 3 & 4 in one and years 5 & 6 in another.
I also went to a small school with a similar breakdown.
It's perfectly fine and I have found d it helps the children really integrate together, making friends through the whole school rather than just their age. They will do a lot of work in their separate years and/or a version of the same work adapted to their level.
It also helps take away stigma from those who may be behind as they can work with the year below but still be in the same class as their peers for most of the time.

DD was in some mixed year classes because her year group was small. It has advantages and disadvantages but overall was fine - in any class different needs are catered for anyway, so I would imagine kids are split into groups for differing abilities which will largely also be in age.
DD is doing a PhD now, so didn't do her too much harm.

My 2 were at small village primary, and are only 1 school year apart, so ended up in the same class half the time. It worked OK, I think. The class was split into ability groups for certain things like maths.

No it isn't dont be so daft. Plenty of schools with way more than 20 kids do this.

I'm in rural Wales, nearly every school is like this. Many of the schools are also very good. DD is at one of the bigger schools which has 1.5 years per class. There are many tiny villages schools with much less.

I have taught in two small village schools.

The first had three classes covering ages 4-11. I was in the middle class which covered years 2,3 and 4. In the other, there were 5 classes covering ages 4-11; I taught the third class, which was for years 2 and 3.
We taught a rolling curriculum to cover the different topics and adapted the work to fit the needs of the children (this isn't always based on age - sometimes a year 2 child can be out performing a year 4 child, for example). It worked perfectly well to be honest.

My own child goes to a larger school (two form entry) and I have recently spent 6 years teaching at a very large primary school (four form entry); this is because we are in a much more urban area, rather than by specific choice. Whilst it is nice for him to have more potential friends his own age, they still have wide ranges of attainment within each class. I have also found that they also rotate topics (especially in EYFS) in much the same way as the village schools did.

Our village school has 2 classrooms- infants in one, juniors in the other. Obviously the work is differentiated, they're not all doing the same thing at the same time. I think it takes a skilled teacher but if done well it's absolutely fine.
The independent school that my eldest attended also had mixed age classes in the younger years where they had small numbers.

I attended a primary school like this for a year after we moved to a very rural location.
My little sister, who would be 3 years below me in a regular school was in the same class as I was.

Educational outcomes were extremely poor in that school and while I learned nothing in my last year, my parents ended up having to pay tutors for my little sister as she was also learning nothing and there for 3 years.

If the teachers are good it can work, but I was the only child in my school in over 5 years not to enter the remedial stream of the local secondary, and the first child ever to enter a grammar school, (they made a big deal of it) so when it goes wrong it goes really wrong.

Totally normal in rural and island communities. The benefit is that the teacher gets to know your child really well over the period the child is in their class. I was cautious when our local primary went from 3 classes to just 2 however when the older ones are helping the younger ones it reinforces their learning.

My children's primary is like this, reception are alone, y1+2, y3+4 and y5+6, one single, fairly small class per group. It works brilliantly, and my eldest has thrived and has made good friends with both younger and older children

When I was in primary school (early 90's) years 3&4 and 5&6 were together (and either reception & 1 or 1&2 must have been together too because there were only 4 classrooms) 💁I don't think it's a problem if it's a small school, there must have been maybe 100 kids in our entire school.

Lots of small village or island schools are like this. I would imagine they were quite nice in the past, I wouldn’t want to teach in a school like that these days, though.

My DS was in a mixed age class in the 80s in London. Class size was over 30.
In the 60s I never had mixed age classes but class size was over 35.
My DGC have had classes of low 20s and no mixed ages.

I should have said these were all large schools with 3 or more classes per year.

Dc school has less than 90 pupils. They have 3 classes.

R/1/part of 2
Part of 2/3/part of 4
Part of 4/5/6

The spilt varies dependant on intake/leavers

This happens in any school.where the PAN is a multiple of 15 rather than 30. I've taught in a couple of schools with a PAN of 45. Sometimes it is arranged as two single age classes and one mixed class (eg Year 1, Year 1/2 and Year 2) or 3 mixed classes (eg all Year 1/2). In the schools I've taught in they've managed to keep the Reception- age children in two smaller classes. I must admit I prefer not to teach mixed age classes. Further up the school wasn't so bad but I found Year 1/2 very hard work. Some schools are very used to the setup though.

Our school does this. It's always been fine - they have separate matchs and phonics lessons and them things like history and science are on a 2 yearly cycle so it doesn't matter. The only difficulty we've had is that sometimes they change who they're with from their own year, which has been setting for one of my boys in particular.

Falling birth rate= falling class sizes, hence the need to double up...
I remember this in the 90s, was okay really and could all change again if Labour win election and people celebrate! Other option is federation with a nearby school which didn't work half as well IMO

Yabu. It works very well. My dd is a mixed aged class. Love it. My dd has been part of the older lot and part of the younger lot ..so much been gained from this...when younger they looked after and look up to the older ones...when older they learn to look after the younger ones ...it's just like a family...benefits only...

My children go to a village school like this. Is the norm here and it works.

This approach was very challenging for both my children and their old school has moved away from doing it. We found that it made for multiple settling in periods and cohort changed each year and teachers clearly struggled with the wide range of ages / abilities.