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.

In junior school, I ended up 2 classes above my age group. I didn't enjoy it, because a) being a 7yr old among 9yr olds meant I was separated from my friends. b) I hadn't covered some of the curriculum. Common sense prevailed; I repeated a year, and we spent a year abroad, so I ended up in my original class.

Surely setting is teaching by ability within a year group? It's what most secondary schools already do. And in at least some local secondary schools, those who are struggling do fewer subjects at GCSE.

I don't know if they do more setting now but in my day we just had sets for maths and everything else was mixed ability. In hindsight it was really bad how many were left to struggle in lessons they couldn't cope with. A lot would act out maybe to deflect from the fact it made them feel stupid.

I guess if each child started reception on maths book one, and then worked through the levels at their own pace. And if the whole school did numeracy from, say 9-10am, they could be grouped not by age, but by book. And ditto, everyone started the reading scheme on level one, book one, and moved through the levels as they mastered both decoding and understanding. And again the whole school has literacy at the same time, and the children are grouped by reading level. Then playtime / lunchtime / topic work you’re back with your age based cohort. There could also be flexibility to start secondary a year earlier or later based on your overall level. EAL students would join a class based on age, but could join a lower group for reading; I imagine they’d be able to catch up pretty quickly that way.

I think it might be useful to be able to have a bit of flexibility of say one year either way. I think the current system is a bit too rigid, though at least the the options for summer born children are better now. But as a general rule, I think children being a long way outside of their age cohort is not a good idea. The final point that Bookoffacts makes is a particularly compelling one. Children of the same age group do tend to have broadly similar maturity, interests and ways of learning but a16 year old, especially a potentially disaffected one who is struggling academically is a very different person to a bright and enthusiastic 10 year old, even if they are capable of similar work. They need different approaches. I think that teaching in ability groups within an age group is the better approach, provided that the groups are subject specific and that it is possible for a pupil to move between sets through the course of their schooling.
I think there would be significant risks to the well being of both the most and least academically able children if progression was entirely determined by academic prowess.

Move countries in the world keep kids back if they fail the year. UK is one of the few where its possible for a child to finish primary school not knowing how to read.

I agree that the social aspect is very important. When my daughter was in year 1, she was one of 6 yr 1 children in a mixed year 1/2 class. Her birthday is in the second half of July so she was a lot younger than most other children in the class. I remember some of them having their 7th birthdays, not long after she had had her 5th. That was a big difference at that age.

She was very bright but she was also very shy and lacking in self confidence. Socially it wasn't the best thing for her, not least because with one exception all her friends from her precious class ended up in different classes (yr 1 was split 3 ways: 6 with yr 2, 30 in a whole yr 1 class, and the remaining 10 or so with reception).

Those whose children were in the mixed yr 1/R class were upset that it looked as if their children were being held back.

I could imagine it just becoming a 'race to the top' particularly for those with competitive parents.

Absolutely. Think about how insufferable the competitive parents would be. It's bad enough when they think the world cares about their child's reading book level or which table their precious is sat on for maths.

Very, very few children leave primary school unable to read.

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

Isn't that called streaming, and exactly what some secondary schools do? Though it's not good for kids who are asymmetrically talented (the dyslexic maths whizz for instance) - and that's why most secondaries set, at least for the core subjects.

My child skipped a year. It was a hard decision.
She had had 2 years of sitting by herself doing higher level workbooks whilst the teacher taught the rest of the class. Eventually the school did some tests and recommended she skip a year. I was worried about the social and emotional side, but its better than her previous situation. There is no easy answer. Also in her class was a girl who had already repeated a year and, due to her date of birth was already 2 years older than many kids in the class, but despite being 9, she could barely read. She was moved to a different specialist school.

This isn't true but even if it was, that's still more than in a lot of 1st world countries.

Because my youngest would never ever have left reception.

Would a child who was asymmetrically talented not just be in different sets for different subjects? I know in my experience there were sets for maths, English, science and maybe modern languages, but they were specific to the subject, not across the board. Likewise when ds1 was at secondary, he was in the top set for maths, but not for English.

everyone started the reading scheme on level one, book one, and moved through the levels as they mastered both decoding and understanding. And again the whole school has literacy at the same time, and the children are grouped by reading level.

That is what happens in schools that follow the Read Write Inc program.
The last group I had was mainly year 1 with a couple of reception, a few year 2 and a year 3.

By strictly academic levels, my DD would be at least one year below (maybe 2) (based on reading and writing). In every other way, she is with the right cohort. Her comprehension levels are high if she is read a text instead of having to read it herself. Her verbal maths is high (struggles to write it down) Her practical skills are above her age group. She's quite tall for her age.

It was discussed at one point about her repeating Yr2, but it was her maturity that swung it.

@PickAChew your child would also not start school age 4. For eg in Poland your child has to pass a school readiness test administered age 5 by an ep before they start official school age 6/7. Every state school has an education psychologist and speech and language therapist. The early years system is much much more robust. There is no talk of 'they'll grow out of it'.

I'm not saying it's perfect, it's just different. All systems have their negatives. I think the british system works amazingly for a lot of kids, theres plenty of kids who do just grow into themselves and keeping kids back has massive psychological repercussions for many kids.

At my primary in the 80s we did the Peak Maths books. You started book zero in first year Juniors (yr 3 now) and worked at your own pace up to the final book 7. Only two children I ever remember finishing book 7. The school borrowed some different maths books that the Catholic School next door used for them to work through. I got to the end of book 5 by the time I finished primary. The mystery of what I missed in books 6 and 7 I suppose I will never know. I did pretty good at maths for GCSE though despite 'missing' two books.

@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.

Because school is about more than just education. It's also about socialising with your peers. Teachers are supposed to be trained to deal with various levels of ability. Nevertheless, some students will never grasp as much as others, and you can't expect them to just keep repeating years until they do - that would be far too humiliating for them.

By the way, there was an academy trust called the Learning Schools Trust that tried a Swedish age-not-stage approach a few years ago, and it was a complete disaster. They were banned from taking on new schools and eventually ousted.

It's only like this in the UK. In Germany where I went to school you have to pass each subject to move up into the next year. To be fair though, most DC still struggle second time around, especially without targeted interventions or a change of school form.

Children classed on ability would be good because there is a massive difference between a high/low ability child in a primary school class. Split into three groups.. High ability, middle ability and low achievers. The problem is kids now do mastery maths and keep learning the same thing over again to make sure the low ability group grasp it. The government have always said before covid times..they want to close the gap between the high and low achievers. So yes the high ability are held back in class and not stretched as the explaining and work has to be so the very low ability understand and keep repeating it. In mastery maths the kids do the same work .eg in maths there worksheets will have a green chilli the easy few questions, a few medium questions on the yellow chilli and red chilli which have challenging questions but the kids end up doing the green few questions low ability and even the high ability don't bother doing more as the teacher has to treat them the same " don't worry if you find yellow and red tricky just do the green. So the high ability aren't stretched previously the low ability would be given green , middle ability yellow and red high ability but now everyone has all three chilli's on the worksheet because of equality/ equal rights..given the same chance. Kids being labelled at primary into different work / and sat at tables on ability were ..seeing themselves as failures already if they were sat on the green low achievers table and the high achievers were said to be think they were better so education in primarys is mixed ability seating and the same chilli work. Goverment wants to see or did want to see results from teachers assesments making sure that the gap / marks between the high and low achievers were closing and not widening. So no I don't think children in classes on ability rather than age will happen. Although in my circumstance my child is bright so would do well to be moved up but I know he will be continued to held back in state schools. Secondary is different they are put into classes based on ability.

@947EliseChalotte that might be an issue at your school not an all schools issue.

Yes we have mild,hot and spicy. Children start at their level. For the milds and hots,if they finish they go to the next level. For the spicy children once they finish, they have mastery/challenges questions. For the ones that finish those too(sometimes it happens) we have a set of more questions, or we make up out own questions on the spot.

It's rare a child is just sat twiddling their thumbs,and even then mostly it's free/chill time as a rewards.

What are you doing with the kids who have got through all the school years by the time they're 12? Would we then send them to uni / start work? They'd miss out on been kids, if all their 'peers' were adults, plus it would be a safeguarding nightmare.

Or at the other end, what about the one's who reach 18 while still in primary school? Would they then leave without the experience of secondary school? Or keep going to school while also moving out, getting married and having kids? There would probably be some who's own kids would catch them up.

I think the country's where this is common tend to have a private education system, where the parents buy as much or little as they need or can afford. In a public system every child is entitled to the same amount of education, so it doesn't really work. Plus who wants there 8 year old sat next to a 16 year old.

We had a 12 year old in an a level class when I was sitting my a levels. It was endlessly awkward. All the silly conversations you want to have as a 17 year old were shifted until that class was over. We didn't want to sit with the 12yo either so I can't imagine it was that fun for them.

Grammar schools are good for managing the more able, but then they cause the extra stress of only having schools with less able students surrounding them. Then there's not much middle ground in these areas sometimes.