Our Council want Parent Views on Moving Kids up in secondary school according to ability rather than age....

[Milliways]

What do you think?

Would you want your bright 12 year old corrupted by 15 year olds etc etc.

Is it awful to be "held back"?

Here is a clip from the website (was discussed on local radio today)

The draft vision document also floats some other ideas to prompt discussion:

starting the school year in June rather than September
enabling children to move forward when they are ready rather than according to their age
co-locating primary and secondary schools
co-locating schools, health and children's services on school sites

I suppose I'd be interested as to what happens in France (do they still move up their according to ability) how does it work what to people who've been through the system think of it?

Bad idea.

They may academically be able to handle it, but socially and emotionally for a 12 year old to be with 15 year olds is generally held to be a bad thing.

School isn't just about academic results, it's about socialisation and emotional development. Oh sorry, no it's not, it's just about league tables.

Mmm - will they hold them back based on ability too?

Would be a bit worried about the 'corruption' too I think.

Locally we have several 'Children's Centres' based on school sites incorporating health, childrens and community services.

Sorry - I see that they would be held back. I think if they are going to repeat a year it's more acceptable to do it in primary, not secondary.

I don't like it! I mean, we all want our kids to be seen to do well, and I liked it when our primary combined 2 year groups to make 4 maths sets, but this was then stopped as Yr 6's didn't like being with Yr5's etc, and National Curriculum was a nightmare.

How do they manage class sizes when this happens?

I could see holding some students back in Primary would be helpful if they have major issues with literacy and numeracy.

We have increasing numbers of children coming into year 7 who cannot really access the curriculum, because they can't cope with the reading and writing. For some of these an extra year, with a single teacher, (and all the security that can give) could be a real advantage. Also primary teacher know how to teach a child to read....I don't! Many of these students also lack the emotional maturity that you need in a much bigger school, with lots of different staff teaching them.

But I can also see that it could be socially very difficult and could be very damaging to their self esteem (which can often be low to start with). It would be a very difficult decision to make, and I think for it to work you would have to take it on a case by case basis, and not a blanket recommendation

I've seen a really interesting secondary timetable where years 8 - 11 cab mix and match - ie be in a year 11 maths lesson but a year 9 spanish and a year 8 D&T. Am completely oversimplifying it, but it is progression by ability/choice on a subject by subject basis, rather than a whole year basis.

I think there would be problems socially with this.

Schools should be able to manage varying abilities within a year group through differentiation.

Germany has had this system for years (of holding back, I'm not sure about accelerating. And I don't know if they've still got it).

The general view of all the German kids I came across, was that if you were held back, you were thick. Held-backees (if that's the right term), then defined themselves as thick as well, and generally lost interest. It didn't looik like a good way of re-igniting interest in school work, but my experience is only anecdotal, I don't know how that worked on a population basis.

I think it could work if done by really sensitive teachers.

So it won't work, because they're not all MB and TSAP.

I think it could work if there was also flexibility in the age at which children start school. We could get away from the rigidity of the current system where year group is determined soley by age. Holding back/accelerating not unusual in Ireland, I think.

Thanks hunker!

We are flirting with such ideas at the school I teach as we have the chance to implememnt a new plan for local schools. Our secondary school has a children's centre wit a nursery in it and many of those children will go off to a primary and then return to us. There is a chance we will get a primary on site which means that we could "educate" all the way from cradle to grave ( we do adult courses) It is a possibility and is something I would love to do but careful selection of staff is needed.

I saw something on TV recently, perhaps on that programme about children who could not read and children were taught according to literacy levels and it seemed to work.

it realy would depend on where they set the benchmark - all kids just arnt academically able - but all kids should be able to read and write and do basic numeracy before they leave school.

i think this idea is a good one - IN SENIOR school. it would force a little less chatter ( or punching, knifing, shooting) and a little more diligence if they want to stay with their friends - like i say it depends on the benchmark - perhaps there shouldbe a school Year mean average. in fact i think thats a brilliant idea. becuase there are some schools in the country where the whole fucking year would stay behind. so there should be a mean average.

I think in principle it's a good idea as long as it isn't run away with. My ds is a very early September birthday and to be honest felt like he was treading water all through yr 6 as he'd already got thru' 11 plus and didn't seem to be doing anything new.

On the negative side, it could get horribly nasty with pushier parents making their kids feel bad for not jumping up a year.

I think it's true that peer pressure could help to encourage people not to lag behind.

On the other other hand.........

I have a gut feeling it would create more problems than it solves though it does have attractions.

I think that it is only sensible to hold back those children who are not yet ready to handle the Secondary school syllabus. It's not fair on them to ask them to do something that they are not capable of.
However, I think it would cause problems if this issue suddenly arose in Y6 - the 'problem' should have been identified way before then and corrective measures taken (eg holding back in Y4 or Y5?).

It could be a great idea: kids learn that they actively progress due to their own work, rather than just passively because they have clocked up another birthday.

But if children haven't learnt to read in primary school, why would keeping them there another year help? I can see of course that learning to read would help, but why keep the children an extra year in a place that has spent seven(ish) years failing to teach them?