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.

Bright children do not ultimately benefit from being accelerated academically. Their emotional development gets missed and they end up a) feeling that their academic achievements are all there are to them and b) underdeveloped emotionally because they try and tackle every problem cognitively rather than emotionally, and because their classmates are at a different life stage. Other things than academic smarts matter just as much or more in making for successful and happy adults.

Some children, due to SEND would never move up.

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

So what are they being moved up to do? to sit there not having a clue what the teacher or anyone else is talking about?

Also EAL students whose grasp of English might be quite low , but their ability and level of understanding is high.

How would you judge it? Keep all the under age related behind ? What if they're only under in certain areas? What about overcrowding classrooms? Not to mention that quite a lot of the children that come up as under, are vulnerable or disadvantaged in some ways, learning difficulties, disabilities, trauma, chaotic home lives etc. How is separating them from their peers ,possibly for years on end supposed to help?

I'm from a country where we repeat the year. I'm used to the system and sometimes yes I do think x would benefit so much from repeating the year. The issue is that it has to be and would be standardised, not about an individual x and then you do more harm than good.

Done properly it would be possible to have children in ability appropriate classes for each subject but remaining in age grouped form classes and lunch/break time/extra Curriculars. Some kids who will be great at maths and science will be average at English and history so won’t be sharing every single class with children older than them. Also- there will be others from their age group that also excel at maths/science so will be in the higher class with them.

So what are they being moved up to do? to sit there not having a clue what the teacher or anyone else is talking about?

Building up their social skills, friendships etc.

Not being able to write or read or do maths doesn't mean that they are completely unable to access some of the curriculum. A good school will support them to access all of it , at a level they are comfortable with.

There are adaptations and support that can be put in place.
There are interventions.

I know kids that can't read past "the cat is on the mat" ,but are great at maths.

I know kids that really struggle in maths , think adding two digit numbers with carrying over , but are amazing readers,writers and have a vast general knowledge.

And then there's everything in between.

I think there should be an option to have an extra year in primary and one in secondary. It would also be good for it to be optional rather than compulsory

There is more to education than academia. A child who does well academically is not necessarily emotionally mature, and vice versa. Having them grouped by age does more to address all round development in my opinion. It also helps highlight that people have different talents, which should be encouraged. I don't think a school environment that only pushes academic attainment is a nice place for children.

Not being able to write or read or do maths doesn't mean that they are completely unable to access some of the curriculum. A good school will support them to access all of it , at a level they are comfortable with.

So teaching by ability and not age would be far better for them. As proposed in the OP.

I went to a French school. I was very young for my cohort and had to repeat the equivalent of Reception. My friends moved up, I didn’t and there was a huge stigma around being “repeter”. I then skipped a year to rejoin my age group, but struggled as they had covered a lot of material that I hadn’t. Then I changed countries and went down a year (still in French system). Eventually, age 10, I moved from the French to English systems, where my birthday made me one of the eldest in the year. The previous years of jumping around ability and age group, never fitting in and leaving friendship groups, finally came together, and I found that I was at the right ability level in the right age group!!

My example is very extreme, but I’m not sure that repeating/skipping ever did me any favours. I caught up by the end of primary school, and was actually one of the more able students. Children learn and mature at different rates.

How is someone still being in y1 or 2 when they're 10 better for them? And just hearing the same information (think science,geography,PHSE,RE etc) over and over again better for them?

It would damage the top end and the bottom end. Not to mention being racist. And of course fiercely classist. Proven disastrous in all ways.
Do you teach?

Nothing to do with academic acceleration, but by some glitch, my husband went through the school system a year younger than his peers. Younger than some in the year below. He was given the option to stay back a year when transitioning to secondary school but passed his entrance exams so his parents didn't feel it was necessary.

Children learn and mature at different rates.

DH was berated by his mother during childhood for having been 'kept back a year' in his private junior school. It was only quite a long time later that he realised he'd done his O levels and a levels at the normal age, so he must have either started school young or skipped an early year, which for some reason his mother had failed to mention.

Back then, there were 'express streams' or kids skipping a year - but it didn't really seem to benefit them in the long run.

Because broadly speaking age with children gives you the base level for ability and development to date. Then of course if you deviate a lot from that, something needs to adjust. But you have to start somewhere which would work for the majority of population in practical and real terms.

1)It is damaging to put a bright child in with older children. They will be damaged psychologically. They may get through with 100% adult supervision but it will still damage them emotionally and socially.
2)
I have taught in wonderful schools with children, recently in the UK, from all over the world. Lately Somalia, Sierra Leone and Nigeria. These children who translate for their mums and sometimes dads at parents evenings, as their parents don't speak English struggle academically and are supported, cherished and guided at their own level, in their own aged year groups. They'd be disproportionately in younger years under your system. I've taught mainstream yr11s who struggle with numerical place value. (1 + 2 = 12). They are supported and taught to their own level.
Where would new ESL kids go?

3)Middle class tutored kids would sail through and go to uni at 13!?

4. Kids are already streamed and set according to ability level. Work is also differentiated in classes.

5)Mixed age groups just don't work. With 100% adult supervision it can be forced but it brings so many problems. 7yos in with 14 yos! Innocent bright eyed kids up against apathy and disaffection and mean girls.

6)Also, teachers teach to the year group. Primary school teachers are a completely different career and personality to secondary school teachers. Its like comparing Snape and Holly Willoughby. Different styles. You can't teach a smart 6yo in the same way as a lower ability 15yo.

How is someone still being in y1 or 2 when they're 10 better for them?

They wouldn’t be in year 1 or 2. They’d stay in their same year group by age but their classes would be grouped by ability.

No one with an ounce of wit would advocate putting a 7yo in with 14yos

Not sure moving up is such a good idea as being kept down.

It's much better to be with your age group and use school for socialisation not education. Let's be real, you're not doing much at school, anyway, if you're at all academically able. Once you've learned to read and write what else can they help you with. It's just childcare and spinning your wheels until you get into the good stuff.

I was skipped up at school by some way and it did me no good at all IMO. It's a lot harder to pick up conversational turn taking or conflict resolution as an adult than trigonometry.

I could imagine it just becoming a 'race to the top' particularly for those with competitive parents. In my opinion school would then become all about achieving academic qualifications with little regard for social/emotional development.

They’d stay in their same year group by age but their classes would be grouped by ability.

Can you expand on that? Just to understand exactly what you are suggesting/how it would work.

@Smallsteps88
Whatever you call it it's still 5 yos in with 10yos in your example. Would those 10 yos then go through ability years 2,3,4,5 and 6? And start secondary at age 15. Then leave secondary at age 20? This is assuming they ever go up an ability group at all!
Ffs

In Ireland they can start at any age from 4 to 6 so they are not always the same age. My dd is just 7 and there are children in her class who are still 6 and some who are 8.

I think it's the emotional and social aspects.

I was a clever kid but struggled socially (now know that was due to an undiagnosed at the time ASD). I'd have struggled even more with being in a class of majority 14 year olds when I was 9. My parents did get asked in about Y3 if they thought it would be best to move me up one year, but refused because they thought it best for me socially to stay with my established class.

And yes the thing about different subjects. A friend is dyslexic so massively, massively struggled with written essay subjects at school but now has a good degree from Oxbridge in a science. What do you do with him?

I wonder if another option could be to allow those who are struggling to do less subjects and focus on getting their core subjects back on track.