SarahPage said:
From my experience, mixing vastly different ages based on competence alone can lead to negative dynamics, where younger, more capable students may feel stifled by older peers who are less competent.
The perception that older students are ‘dumb’ because they are not at the expected grade level might be a misunderstanding. Often, these students have not had their educational needs adequately met, which wouldn’t necessarily be resolved by placing them with younger peers.
@LilyHarper
The issue is more about the inefficiency of pairing students who are at different developmental stages, regardless of their academic skills. It can hinder the progress of both groups.
In the US, ability grouping in high schools tends to marginalize students deemed average, diverting resources and attention to those at the highest and lowest ends of the academic spectrum.
In special education, grouping by academic level rather than age can sometimes prevent older students from maturing appropriately, as they may not face the challenges and responsibilities typical for their age group.
In the 1970s, we were grouped by skill level in both math and reading without being separated into different classes. This allowed for more flexible progression within the same classroom environment.
The original intent of education was to cater to individual learning speeds, but over time, the system has shifted to age-based groupings that encompass more than just academics, such as social and emotional development.
Having experienced both systems, I’ve seen the benefits and drawbacks of moving students between grade levels for different subjects. It can be socially challenging, especially for younger students in classes with much older peers.
Historically, high school math was competency-based, which worked well for motivated students. However, shifting to an age-based system has created issues, particularly for students who are either ahead or behind their peers in terms of skill.