Skipping a year in primary

[deanstreet]

I see it is very very rare to skip a year in UK whilst it is not uncommon in America or Australia or France. The most commonly cited reason is social and emotional development rather than the academics.

After reading a few research papers found online, it seems very inconclusive, just like any social science and is eventually "it depends".

The US Accelerated Institute advocates skipping.
I am reading its [clearly self-serving] book now and it seems rather logical and aligns with my common sense.

Problem is almost all 7+ preps (Latymer etc) state entry year is strictly by age. 11+ admission policies also state it is essentially by age, except special circumstances and at the discretion of the school. Even the child is absolutely fine coping with a year ahead and can perform well in 11+ assessment, the age policy alone will handicap the child.

Opinions?

Completely agree with your post @Preppyprepper. My mum skipped a year of primary school (in the 1960s) and was summer born so was nearly 2 years younger than some in her class and absolutely hated it. It was suggested at some point that I should skip a year (in the 1990s) and my parents refused because of my mum’s experience. I was academically bright but had loads of friends and loved school throughout my education and am so glad it didn’t happen.

I went to Oxbridge and met some others who had skipped years with mixed results - some were ok, some hated it, some were so gifted and so on the spectrum that the social side would have been irrelevant to them whatever year they were in (mainly mathematicians).

I now have two bright children - one summer born, one autumn. My autumn born child would have been fine going to school a year early but I’ve seen how much she has thrived at school compared to her summer born brother (who is also doing v well but didn’t hit his stride until year 2-3).

It’s a massive advantage to kids to be older and more socially competent as well as academically bright. There is no way I would want to remove that advantage by pushing them ahead, cutting short the time they have to play and be a child, exposing them to things like alcohol, sex and drugs at a younger age than their peers.

US schools must be utterly shit if they can't differentiate for bright kids

I think for me it's about whether the child is socially and emotionally forward enough to be happy forever with older kids. Once they get ahead, they will stay ahead (unless they repeat a year). That means starting secondary school routines/travel/homework at between just 10 and nearly 11, when their peers will be 11 and some almost 12. It means college at 15, not 16 or nearly 17. Potentially it means leaving home for uni not long after 17, when some of their friends will be nearly 19! Legal it means not being able to drink for the first year your school and uni mates do.

I don't think it's wrong per se, but I do think there are a lot of considerations other than just the academics to consider. I also think that schools should be able to stretch and challenge children and really going into be the year above shouldn't be needed. I have a child who is gifted at maths. He is year 8 working at year 10-11 level. (I am a teaching assistant working with adults re-taking their GCSEs, so I do know that a lot of what my son does IS GCSE level.) However my son leaping forward wouldn't be good because he still needs year 8 teaching in some subjects. Maths is VERY ahead, Science is somewhat ahead, other things are more average. If my child can be appropriately stretched in Maths, despite not being moved to year 10 classes in year 7, then why can't other children be challenged in as many subjects as needed in their right year group?

But there is so much more to school and education than ‘learning to read’. They can be academically challenged whilst remaining with their peers. There are many ways to stretch and challenge, just starting on the next bit of curriculum isn’t necessarily particularly useful. The social aspect should never be underestimated and it far too often is.

One of my DDs was born late and ended up in the next academic year. Through primary school, she probably would have benefited from being in the year above. She was more school ready than many of the children who left nursery the year before her. She was always mature and also found the pace of primary school slow. She was in a mixed age class with the year above twice and had no issues with working at that level. It was pretty dull the next year though as she was effectively repeating it.

I'm less convinced that she would benefit from being a year ahead at secondary school, but she's at an academic one, so maybe fits in better with her peers as a result.

Myths and Misconceptions of Acceleration

Univ of Washington Early Program admits students in Y9 and Y11.

If you see education as an intellectual thing, I think skipping a year makes sense. But if you see it as a social club, then I get the logic why skipping is not a good idea. Emotionally, I think it depends on the children.

These are all American links. The Anerican system is generally not regarded very highly in the UK and European countries.

'A social club' really belittles the importance of social skills and the wider benefits of eduction. Actually, social skills are one of strongest predictors of sucess in adulthood.

https://journals.lww.com/ajnonline/fulltext/2015/10000/do_strong_social_skills_in_kindergarten_predict.12.aspx

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a80796640f0b62302693b8a/Social_and_Emotional_Skills_and_their_Long_Term_Effects_on_Adult_Life.pdf

I really struggled in my village primary because the teacher had no time to teach me. I was so far ahead of most of the other kids, my books went unmarked, nobody cared. I got the top marks available in all the SATS so they had no interest in helping me. I was also a September born child. The only time I was stretched was when our class got combined with the year above and there was a boy called Jody who was slightly better at times tables that me (we did a timed exercise every Friday). On this basis, if I’d have skipped a year I think it would’ve been really positive but good teaching in my year group would’ve been a better solution.

As per my PP id have been much better off in many ways if I’d have skipped a year but would my life have been better if I’d gone to uni earlier? Got a job earlier? Surely everyone deserves the same time to develop? I would have benefitted from better teaching in my year group to stretch me though.

@Preppyprepper are you a social worker or a property agent?

.....what?

@partygoparty relying on a teacher to stretch a child is too much risk on the family and too much work on the teacher, so I think skipping a year altogether is better and easier. Students should be grouped by intellectual capacity, not biological age. Emotional and social are linked to age, but I personally don't think a year makes much of a difference.

IME - considerable - it has a long lasting effect. No intellectual harm - kids who skip are generally very very clever - but soooo bad to become so identified w your mind/intelligence in childhood. Life-shaping.

nb - it’s impossible to study this, as if you’re in a system where it happens, then you are never entirely out of year, and if it isn’t allowed, then it doesn’t happen. In the context I am talking about there were kids up to 2 years ahead and 3 behind.

I really see no benefits At All.

A year doesn't make much of a difference academically either. The brightest child in Year 2 is far above the average year 3. So moving them one year ahead will achieve little and they will still be reliant on the teacher challenging them.

But if you don't skip, then you stand out in your usual school year as even more clever, because you are so out of kilter with your peers.

It is really hard to hide intelligence from a child and their peers. They figure it out and identify with it, whatever happens.

They wouldn't though.
Every teacher knows how to differentiate. The more able children are given exercises that stretch them.

Maybe we need "gifted education" like they seem to have in the US. There's a fab teacher on social media (Ms Chang) and her description of her gifted classes sounds ideal for one of my DDs.

If only that were true. We've seen a huge variation in the ability of teachers to differentiate. Moving from one who really can and does, to one who can't or doesn't is miserable.

I know two people who skipped years. Both hated it. One went to uni at 17 which made a lot of the socialising and general living arrangements difficult. The other discovered that the secondary wouldn’t have him early so did the last year of primary school twice.

I was year-accelerated throughout secondary, and intermittently in primary (moved schools several times, sometimes to my age year, sometimes to a year above).

I was academically ahead of my accelerated year as well - and while it can be socially isolating to be ahead in your own year, it is yet more so to be both ahead AND a year young.

I passed Oxbridge exams (old person) at 16 but ‘reset’ myself by taking a year off and arriving at 18. I loved university - I was ‘within the realms of normal’ for the peer group, though still achieved v highly on graduation.

A year is not enough to genuinely match ability for true giftedness, but plenty enough to mean social difficulties. On the balance of risks, in the English system, not worth it.

im not sure you’ve articulated the benefit of skipping though? I can see I might have been more motivated but would I have been better off going to uni earlier? Getting a job earlier? What’s the quantifiable benefit? Is it motivation? Or is it getting to the same destination earlier for kudos? (I’m aware that might sound snarky, I don’t mean it that way)

They might know how to differentiate but having the time to do it well is another thing altogether.

Not being quite so bored would be a benefit.

The arbitrary fixed date cutoff is a bit strange. If we accept that deferring some summer borns is a good idea, why not a bit of flexibility at the other end?

I really don’t agree that bright children are bored at primary. I was one such child and if I finished my work early I got to write my own stories in my creative writing book or read my own novel - bliss. I never remember being frustrated at the pace of work - I just did it all quickly and had lots of my own time. Very bright children are usually able to keep themselves occupied and have their own interests, even if the school doesn’t stretch them. I later learned an instrument and was allowed extra time to practice during class time which I also loved. (Fyi I ended up with one of the top firsts in my year at Oxbridge in a humanities subject, am NT and no genius).

I also disagree that bright children automatically get bullied. Far from it, bright NT children usually have superior social skills and tend to be popular (the case for both of my children).

It’s a different story if they are ND as then (I) the levels of giftedness may be more pronounced and (II) social skills are likely to be poor. It’s the latter that leads to bullying. If a child has poor social skills compared to their peers then they might benefit all the more from staying with their correct year group and working on that, rather than adding (im)maturity as an additional handicap. For the very small number of children whose giftedness is off the scale (eg a maths genius I knew at uni who was a once in a generation maths talent and autistic) then skipping a year doesn’t go anywhere near far enough as they are just so far ahead of other kids and operating on another level entirely.

It makes complete sense to defer children because it is well established that there are disadvantages to starting school at just turned 4, and that these disadvantages persist over a child’s school career. Statistically there are only advantages to being an autumn born child so absolutely no reason to allow children to move up. They are not equivalent.