Why is school years by age not ability?

[Talksense]

Just thought really and after a discussion with my DP it's got me thinking.

Why do kids progress through 'years' when they might not have grasped that 'year' content putting them at even more of a disadvantage when starting the next year? Especially in primary with a lot of schools just one class per age group?

Sorry if i'm not making much sense as i'm in bed with the worst brain fog with possible Covid.

If it was by ability then presumably some children would skip a year or a couple of years. By doing do they'd miss some of the curriculum. Other children would be continually repeating years which would be very demoralising.

Children progress at different rates.

Children's apparent ability when they enter school is largely a reflection of their pre-school experiences eg how much language they have been exposed to and how much they have been read to. Making early judgements would write off bright children who have had poorer parenting.

Teacher assessment can be affected by unconscious bias.

Labelling children in order to sort them by ability rather than by age can be a self fulfilling prophecy. It would be particularly damaging to children labelled as lower ability.

A bright child working with older children would be at a different stage in terms of their development eg their emotional development so the class might not meet all their needs.

"If it was by ability then presumably some children would skip a year or a couple of years. By doing do they'd miss some of the curriculum."

Not necessarily as they'd be learning faster so maybe would pack more in.

"Other children would be continually repeating years which would be very demoralising."

Repeating years is still very common in some countries and because it's common is not stigmatised as it is here.

I agree with your other points.

If that was the case half of my Facebook "friends" would still be in school.

Because some children would never move up.

Because there is massive stigma in countries where this does exist.

Because you would separate children from their friends and peers and big age differences affect emotional and social development.

Because who and how would it be decided without extra grades and assessments ? Most countries that have this system use grades. What will you base it on? Just maths and English? What about science,history,geography?

Because at times,no matter how rare , children could fall through the cracks/get overlooked because "they'll repeat the year anyways".

What about CB and other child related benefits ?

These are just a few of the reasons.

Repeating years is still very common in some countries and because it's common is not stigmatised as it is here.

Are you from one of those countries?

Way back when education first became compulsory (Victorian times) the school years were called Standards and a child had to obviously be at a certain 'standard' to move up each year. Interestingly Standard 1 didn't start until age 7 (ages 5-7 being The Infants). The leaving age changed over the years. Originally it was aged 10 but went up. At one point it was aged 12 OR if you had reached the end of Standard 5 (modern terms Yr 7). Apparently many boys who wanted to get this silly schooling out the way and get on with working - especially rural boys - would work extra hard to be able to skip Standards and 'pass' Standard 5 early and not have to wait until they were 12.
Times change eh?

God could you imagine the mn threads . My talented gifted dc (that is so much more imaginative creative and intelligent than yours obvs, due to the fact I am a wholesome parent that banned internet never let them do drugs, out of the house, watch tv or speak to unworthy people) is only doing gcses instead of a levels at age 2. Aibu to think the teachers are shit?

Because at primary level kids need peers and friends their own age. Teachers should be able to differentiate learning outcomes for a normal ability range. Where a kid is an obvious outlier provision is more patchy, but can be good. Even more important the kid has own-age peers though. At secondary level kids are put into ability sets for lessons so no real need group other than by age. Peers and friends the same age even more vital at this age.

I do wonder if this is something worth looking g at when the kids inevitably return to school at very different levels.

@Gwenhwyfar You might be able to cram in more of the maths and English curriculum because the maths concepts and SPaG would be grasped more quickly and you wouldn't need so much repetition.

But, no matter how bright the child, there are many subjects (eg history and geography) which have a large amount of content to get through and just couldn't be taught more quickly.

As a teacher this is something I've often wondered, but the social and emotional element of school is also important. There's also content in the curriculum to consider. For example, just because a 6 year old can decode a text, doesn't mean they have the emotional maturity to appreciate the content.

I think there should be flexibility for students to study different subjects at different levels once they hit a certain age.I also think that at 16 students should get a transcript that covers an average of their performance in secondary, or a weighted grade that accounts for a series of assessments and exams from, for example, Year 11 + their 2 other best years.

In some special schools they do follow a "stage not age" in school. My youngest son is in such a school in England. I feel it has its benefits and drawbacks and I feel it's appropriate for my ds's school

Because there's more to school than academia. Socially children fare better being around same aged peers. A child who is 8 but perhaps working at reception levels academically would hate being with 5 year olds.

My sons SEN school groups by ability to a point (about a 3 year spread) but it does bring in issues around social, physical and emotional development which are just as important as academic.

There's a child in DS's class (Y6) tackling A Level maths problems. His English work is standard for Y6. Where would you place him? Let alone safety issues of letting 10yos sit next to 18yos.
DS at age 8 was working at 11yo level in all subjects (except PE!), but socially he was struggling so much. He needed to be with his cohort to spend time working on the social/emotional side of things. It took a good few years to get him back on track.

They do this in France - if you don't pass the year, you have to repeat it. Which means that you get some older, often disaffected children in the later classes. I'm told they really improve the atmosphere and experience for everyone else....

On the flip side, I have some friends who are very bright, and skipped years in the UK. Academically they've done well, but the majority of them have struggled socially. And there are obvious disadvantages to starting university at 16.

Children progress at different subjects at different speeds though, children who struggle with reading could be well progressed with computing for example. And children who struggle receive extra support, they may still struggle without that a year behind.

High schools are then set. I think in USA you are either a high school graduate or you aren't. At least everyone has the opportunity to finish school and take GCSEs here, if you'd had to repeat years early on you've probably already lost that opportunity.

Variance between subjects immediately came to mind - DD is great at English and literacy, works at teen standard, but has dyscalculia and can barely manage times tables. They would have no idea where to put her! Her friend, who is bright all round, struggles socially and I suspect putting her forward academically wouldn’t be a great option for her socially.

Because some children would never move up.

If they can’t achieve the standard to move up they aren’t capable of being in the next class!! They should be supported to be confident in the level they’re at before moving on at their own pace rather than pushed to move up to a level they’re not ready for.

Why is school years by age not ability?

Because schools aren’t funded well enough to facilitate it properly.

My sister did a spell teaching in a backwoods school in the US. Quite a few of the children there had to repeat years. She had no idea until she commented on a couple of the children in her class being so tall.

Each class is filled with mixed abilities. So there isn’t really such a thing as grasping that years work as there isn’t a set thing that you must learn when you are 10.

Teachers have several different groups for reading, writing, math etc that are all different levels.

" if you don't pass the year, you have to repeat it. Which means that you get some older, often disaffected children in the later classes. I"

They did in the school I worked in in Belgium and it didn't really cause any problems.
They even did it in my old school in Wales in a way i.e. you could be re-sitting your GCSEs in lower sixth so in the way you were re-doing your 5th year and some re-did upper sixth.

It's already possible for gifted children to go up a year isn't it and younger children who are not ready can start primary a year later can't they?

Some children, due to SEND would never move up.

I have taught children who cannot spell their own name, at 12.

I just remember kids in secondary school who struggled with reading and writing in lessons where you'd be told to "read page 33 and answer questions 1-7" . No one sat down and helped them read through the book so they couldn't access the work. It was pointless them being there. I think you at least need your 3 Rs to be at a certain standard or else the lessons are a waste of time.