Primary school which mix class years by age

podperson

I don't think there's anything wrong with it. When I was at that age our class was over the limit so the oldest half dozen were put in with the class above, which included me. I met a wider range of other kids and we were doing the same kind of work as those in the regular class.
Tbh I think it can be a good idea as there's such a gap between the oldest and the youngest in the class anyway. I was one of the oldest and nearly 5 when I started, my brother was one of the youngest and was still 3. He struggled a lot to adjust and didn't start to catch up properly with his peers until well into primary school.

LondonDiva

I went to an inner city primary and all throughout two classes in each 'year' were mixed.So when I was in the third year (year 5 now) we were in a class of 3&4 years (5&6) - we had two classes of the composite years and everyone learned at their own pace.

I thought it was great...

skintchick

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.

It it's the only chance a child gets at learning to swim, the parents ought to feel ashamed of themselves IMO.

neverdespairgirl

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.

More to the point, I'd have thought, why only one year's swimming?

At both my primary school and at my son's, it's every year from 5 to 11.

jackomdj

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

More to the point, I'd have thought, why only one year's swimming?

At both my primary school and at my son's, it's every year from 5 to 11.

Did you have an on site pool? Our children have to get a coach to the pool, by the time they have got into the coach, got to the pool, changed, had their lesson (about half of which is sat on te side!) changed, driven back.... Most of the afternoon is used up!

I would rather they taught the things I am unble to at school and left me to use my time for things like swimming. Having said that dd could swim by the time she had her school lessons.

de_g.

My primary school (20+ years ago now) had 1.5 form entry. As a somewhat precocious child, I really benefited in those years when I was covering work in the year above.

*Louise*

valk_scot wrote: »

I do think lots of home reading is very important at any level btw so whatever year your DD ends up in, *Louise*, make sure she gets plenty of extra books of the right level, either from the school library, town library or the charity shops. Any teacher will give you a supplementary list of suitable books and authors. Or just go with what your DD likes, even if it does have a sparkly kitten on the front cover!

No worries on that score - she is at the library every Friday, has a chest full of books and if she gets bored of hers she can be found pinching her big brothers ones......the most amusing was a book on Greek Mythology - reading the names in that was a real challenge for her :rotfl:


The more I have read of this thread the more I'm thinking that it doesn't really matter who ends up in which class tbh, just a case of keeping an eye on things and not accuse about anything before seeing how it works...:)

balletshoes

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

More to the point, I'd have thought, why only one year's swimming?

At both my primary school and at my son's, it's every year from 5 to 11.

my daughter's school don't even get one year, they get 10 weeks I think, in year 4. Thats it.

maman

skintchick wrote: »

It it's the only chance a child gets at learning to swim, the parents ought to feel ashamed of themselves IMO.

I am amazed at all the things that appear both on message boards and in the media generally about what should/should not be taught in schools.

In this instance, of course it's a good idea that learning to swim is part of the curriculum. In recent days I've read things about how schools should be teaching proper cookery so that everyone knows how to cook healthily and cheaply from scratch. Then there's all the stuff about good sex education to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Then there's good financial management and budgeting. Oh and did I forget that schools should be in the forefront of advising about drug abuse and sensible use of the internet.

How is this to be fitted in when the government agenda is about good grades and nothing else?

Janepig

jackomdj wrote: »

Did you have an on site pool? Our children have to get a coach to the pool, by the time they have got into the coach, got to the pool, changed, had their lesson (about half of which is sat on te side!) changed, driven back.... Most of the afternoon is used up!

I would rather they taught the things I am unble to at school and left me to use my time for things like swimming. Having said that dd could swim by the time she had her school lessons.

DD/DS's school doesn't have an on-site pool (in fact none of the primary or secondary schools in town have one). They have lessons every day for 3 weeks which involve them going down to the local pool on the bus after lunch then back in time for the end of school. They're separated out into about six groups according to ability. Both mine have had lessons out of school and can swim, but I've got no problem with them having three week's worth of lessons with school.

Back in the mists of time we did the same thing for afew terms when I was in comp - instead of going straight to school we used to go to the pool by 9am once a fortnight and we were back in school by first break. That was instead of our scheduled PE lesson (and a damn sight more fun imo!!).

Jx