Primary school which mix class years by age

peachyprice

bylromarha wrote: »

Depends how they mix and the balance.

I taught a year 1/2 class where the mix was based on age alone. It was awful. I had 3 year 2s, 27 year 1s.

1 of my year 2's was extremely bright - in the top of her year group, but her August birthday meant she was with me.

Always felt I let her down - I'm trying to teach basic a b c's to 29 kids on the carpet, and the best will in the world couldn't meet her needs too in that set up.

Saying that, I've also taught very well set up mixed age classes where the spread of age has not been noticable.

This would never have happened in DD's school. The intake for year 3 onwards was 75, so they were split over three classes of 25. They aimed for a split of a straight class of 25 yr3, a split class of 12 yr3 12 yr4 and a straight class of 25 yr4, there may have been slight variations of a child or two either way, but it worked really well and made for good class sizes for all.

Classes were always split according to age not ability, but I have to say, they seemed to have got it right and I don't recall any children not being challenged for the class they were in.

dizziblonde

As long as the long-term planning's in place for the split year - so they cycle the topics for, say year 3/4 over two years (you might do - before Gove took everything fun off the curriculum - the Egyptians from Y4 one year, then back to the Greeks from Y3, by which time a child's moved on to the next class up and the teacher goes back to Egyptians for example) so everything gets covered, it's really not the problem you'd think it could be.

I've only ever taught one single-year class in my career since qualifying - all the classes I've taught have been mixed-year apart from that - including a fair few cross-key-stage ones which tend to be viewed as the slightly more tricky ones to plan for. I think I've done R/Y1, Y2/3, a Y 3/4/5/6 and one child repeating Y6 class in a private school (must have done that one well - I got glowing inspection feedback on that one!). If the planning's in place it's no harder than differentiating for ANY class of 30 kids - the single age Y4 class I had had a wider range of ability (quite a severe SEN group in that cohort) than the mixed Y2/3 I'd taught the term previously.

One of our local schools has a really arkward admission number like 45 or something (which doesn't fit comfortably into a 30 max class size situation) - after a few years of having one single age and one mixed age class they've now just gone to a system of having all the classes in the school mixed age... lots of schools locally to us seem to have done so. Lots split back into separate age groups for Maths and English though, and for phonics most schools squirrel away small groups in every spare corner of the entire building anyhow!

Only times I'd think it's really a big potential issue would be when it came to SATs prep or whatever - in those cases I think most schools split back into Y5s going with one teacher and Y6s going with another teacher for Maths and English.

peachyprice

dizziblonde wrote: »

As long as the long-term planning's in place for the split year - so they cycle the topics for, say year 3/4 over two years (you might do - before Gove took everything fun off the curriculum - the Egyptians from Y4 one year, then back to the Greeks from Y3, by which time a child's moved on to the next class up and the teacher goes back to Egyptians for example) so everything gets covered, it's really not the problem you'd think it could be.

Yes, this is exactly what happened in DD's school, the 2 year curriculum cycle, so that nothing was ever repeated.

Only times I'd think it's really a big potential issue would be when it came to SATs prep or whatever - in those cases I think most schools split back into Y5s going with one teacher and Y6s going with another teacher for Maths and English.

Yes, this is what they did too, not every day, but they had set days where the yr5's and 6's would be split for numeracy and literacy.

Interestingly, when they went up to secondary school the children from DD's primary were praised for their consistent high standards, just about everyone from her school is set in the upper half of the year, even the summer babies

Frith

At my primary school we had 12 kids in class 1 (aged 4-7) then 7 in class 2 (7-11). We just presumed that was normal. It didn't seem to hold us back as out of that 19, everyone went to university with 2 getting into Cambridge!

jackomdj

I think children will fit into whatever they are given. Our school does not do it, however as dd1 isan Oct baby if they did she would be in with older children which would be good for her. But dd2 is March so would probably be put with the year below, however both of them are bright (top of the class for reading and writing, with dd2 being top for maths too) which would disadvantage dd2 compared to now.

The head did an experiment where he tested the children he thought were at a given stage in the hall on the sats literacy paper, DD was one mark off getting a 4b, this is where she should be at the end of year 6, she is year 3! Then you have some children in the class who are struggling to be where the average year one child is, so already you have the full range of KS1 to KS2 abilities being taught in one class, regardless of age.

peachyprice

jackomdj wrote: »

I think children will fit into whatever they are given. Our school does not do it, however as dd1 isan Oct baby if they did she would be in with older children which would be good for her. But dd2 is March so would probably be put with the year below, however both of them are bright (top of the class for reading and writing, with dd2 being top for maths too) which would disadvantage dd2 compared to now.

TBH, I don't think it does disadvantage brighter children if the class if split by age. Teachers still have the freedom to teach the children at the correct level, the topic may be the same but the y6 children will be working to a higher level than the y5 children. My DD was in the lower 5/6 class but still came out one of the highest in the year for literacy.

Socially she would have drowned at just turned 10 if she had been in a yr6 class with girls who were already 11, she was still a little girl, the older ones were hitting their tween years and all that entails.

dizziblonde

Any teacher worth their salt will make sure the brighter kids get challenged... because more than anything else there are few bigger recipes for mayhem in a classroom than a bright and bored child - they've got the nous to be a bigger pain in the bum than any of the other kids given the time and inclination!

Hence I never gave 'em the chance to be bored!

Mojisola

peachyprice wrote: »

TBH, I don't think it does disadvantage brighter children if the class if split by age. Teachers still have the freedom to teach the children at the correct level, the topic may be the same but the y6 children will be working to a higher level than the y5 children. My DD was in the lower 5/6 class but still came out one of the highest in the year for literacy.

Socially she would have drowned at just turned 10 if she had been in a yr6 class with girls who were already 11, she was still a little girl, the older ones were hitting their tween years and all that entails.

When we set up split classes, we took into account age, ability and social development. As peachprice says, a clever child put in with others at a different development stage would not be good.

I can't believe that there is any school in the country that doesn't say in its literature that they treat all children as individuals and teach them according to their ability. It shouldn't make any difference whether that happens in a class of one age group or a mixed age group. If it isn't happening, that's down to poor teaching and not the mixing of ages.

cootuk

When this was done at DD school, some of the children missed out on swimming as they got banded up into a year that had already done theirs. If this is the only chance a child gets at learning to swim, then it's quite a big thing.

Mojisola

cootuk wrote: »

When this was done at DD school, some of the children missed out on swimming as they got banded up into a year that had already done theirs. If this is the only chance a child gets at learning to swim, then it's quite a big thing.

That's a failure by the school - it must have been possible to fit the extra children into the swimming schedule.