School Years

[Gostevie]

When I went to school in the late 1960s and the 1970s, junior school years were called 1st year, 2nd year, 3rd year etc., and high school years were called 2nd form, 3rd form, 4th form etc. High school 5th form was O-level year, which pupils took at the age of 16 (or almost 16 for those of us born towards the end of the academic year), and those lucky ones who stayed on went into the lower 6th then the upper 6th for two years, at the end of which they took A-levels at the age of 18. The academic year in those days began on 1st September.

Does anybody know how the current terminology of year 11 or year 13 etc. relates to that previous nomenclature?

Many thanks,

Gostevie

[gryffron]

The new(er) system simply counts years in any kind of school. Which is a little more consistent since the break between middle and senior schools varies between council areas. The old system could be inconsistent, like the lack of a first form in most senior schools (mine too).

Year 1 is the first mandatory year in school, age 5-6. Although some infants schools have a pre-school, year 0.
So year 11 is 15-16, gcse year,.
Year 13 is upper 6th. Usually. Some places, especially "6th form colleges" still have upper and lower 6th, or even 6th and 7th.
Still starts Sep 1st.

Gryff

[Gostevie]

The new(er) system simply counts years in any kind of school. Which is a little more consistent since the break between middle and senior schools varies between council areas. The old system could be inconsistent, like the lack of a first form in most senior schools (mine too).

Year 1 is the first mandatory year in school, age 5-6. Although some infants schools have a pre-school, year 0.
So year 11 is 15-16, gcse year,.
Year 13 is upper 6th. Usually. Some places, especially "6th form colleges" still have upper and lower 6th, or even 6th and 7th.
Still starts Sep 1st.

Gryff

Ah, thanks! That makes a lot of sense. When I went to high school in 1975 at the age of 12 we were called the 2nd formers. I always did wonder what happened to the 1st form!

Gostevie

[Lootman]

The new(er) system simply counts years in any kind of school. Which is a little more consistent since the break between middle and senior schools varies between council areas. The old system could be inconsistent, like the lack of a first form in most senior schools (mine too).

Year 1 is the first mandatory year in school, age 5-6. Although some infants schools have a pre-school, year 0.
So year 11 is 15-16, gcse year,.

Then it sounds like the UK had adopted the US system, where year 5-6 is first grade, and the last year is 12th grade.

The term "K-12" is a common term for the entire school experience, starting with kindergarden.

[stevensfo]

The new(er) system simply counts years in any kind of school. Which is a little more consistent since the break between middle and senior schools varies between council areas. The old system could be inconsistent, like the lack of a first form in most senior schools (mine too).

Year 1 is the first mandatory year in school, age 5-6. Although some infants schools have a pre-school, year 0.
So year 11 is 15-16, gcse year,.
Year 13 is upper 6th. Usually. Some places, especially "6th form colleges" still have upper and lower 6th, or even 6th and 7th.
Still starts Sep 1st.

Gryff

I see the advantage of the new system but I can't say I like it very much. When talking to my nephews I always have to ask them to 'repeat it in English', i.e. 1st year secondary etc. It kind of gives this image of a conveyor belt whereas at least the original way kept that distinction between the Primary and Secondary schools which I rather like. I'm curious as to why some areas have a Middle school. Any advantage to that?

I was always amazed at how schools could differ so much. Our sixth form was part of the Secondary school, but we had our own common area, could wear normal, though smart, clothes, had our own dining area and were treated much as college students. The sixth form in the school in the town next to us insisted on sixth formers wearing uniforms and were treated pretty much as normal pupils. This was the 70s and both schools had to compete with a nearby Technical college that also offered A-levels and free transport, so I don't think that sixth form was very popular!

Steve

[dealtn]

I'm curious as to why some areas have a Middle school. Any advantage to that?

I think, at least as far as the UK is concerned, this came about more by trying to introduce the Comprehensive schools. Local Authorities, amongst others, didn't see a universal requirement for children from age 11 to either become "comprehensively educated", or to be streamed into Grammar, or Technical schools, for instance.

The increasing rigidity in the system at age 11 wasn't deemed appropriate when the age of maturity, ability to see and choose a path, or have the flexibility to change, suggested age 11 was too low in many respects. Having some schools that allowed for choices to be made at age 13 (and take children younger than 10) was seem as appropriate and more natural.

As a result a three stage schooling was felt better than a more rigid two stage one. There might still be some merit in that approach, and whilst my county (as local authority) doesn't do this in the state sector, I am only a few miles away from a county that does, and there are (non-state) schools that allow pupils to remain until 13 only a couple of miles away. My children's schools both have "year 7" and "year 9" entry options.

[stevensfo]

I'm curious as to why some areas have a Middle school. Any advantage to that?

I think, at least as far as the UK is concerned, this came about more by trying to introduce the Comprehensive schools. Local Authorities, amongst others, didn't see a universal requirement for children from age 11 to either become "comprehensively educated", or to be streamed into Grammar, or Technical schools, for instance.

The increasing rigidity in the system at age 11 wasn't deemed appropriate when the age of maturity, ability to see and choose a path, or have the flexibility to change, suggested age 11 was too low in many respects. Having some schools that allowed for choices to be made at age 13 (and take children younger than 10) was seem as appropriate and more natural.

As a result a three stage schooling was felt better than a more rigid two stage one. There might still be some merit in that approach, and whilst my county (as local authority) doesn't do this in the state sector, I am only a few miles away from a county that does, and there are (non-state) schools that allow pupils to remain until 13 only a couple of miles away. My children's schools both have "year 7" and "year 9" entry options.

Thanks for that. I can see why Middle schools made some sense. Yes, I think that the idea of a person having their path in life decided at the age of 11 was well and truly discredited a long time ago and seems cruel and unnatural now. Children 'flower' at different ages. Although our Primary school was pretty good, I reckon I was quite immature at that age and I don't think that I would have passed the 11+ exam. Our Comp had streaming and it seemed to work very well, though I wasn't really aware of it at the time. It was flexible enough for pupils to switch between programs of study, some taking all O-levels or all CSEs, while some were double-entered for certain subjects. Thus, even if someone had been at the bottom of the class when younger, they still had chance to improve, continue to A-levels and university.

Steve

[Alaric]

Thanks for that. I can see why Middle schools made some sense.

It's a partial copy of the fee paying boarding sector "Public Schools" where age 13 is the transfer age to the later stages of schooling.

[UncleEbenezer]

Now the language has got more confusing. A different usage of "middle".

My recollection is that my comprehensive comprised "lower", "middle" and "upper" schools, on different sites. Years 1/2, 3/4 and 5/L6/U6. This was for historical and pragmatic reasons: the comprehensive had been created by merging boys grammar, girls grammar and secondary modern schools (the latter being middle school, and having by far the worst buildings). I realised that was a local rather than a standard usage of the terms, but not that one of those terms had an existing and different standard usage!

[stevensfo]

Thanks for that. I can see why Middle schools made some sense.

It's a partial copy of the fee paying boarding sector "Public Schools" where age 13 is the transfer age to the later stages of schooling.

Yes, I know. My Dad and his brother both won a scholarship to Warwick school and I came to within a whisker of being packed off there myself as a boarder, but apparently my mother was having none of it. (I didn't know about any of this till much later). Our neighbours sent their boys to a nearby private school (I don't like the terminology 'public school', though I fully support the right of parents to send their kids there!). Their mother was also a teacher at our Primary school. We used to play together so often compared notes. We were young and naive at the time, but looking back, I'm bloody glad my parents didn't send me there. The stories I heard would have the whole teaching staff arrested these days!

Steve

[genou]

Our neighbours sent their boys to a nearby private school (I don't like the terminology 'public school',

Tis language. If you are sufficiently rich, you hire tutors and school your children privately. If you are a bit short, you send them to a school with other children, in public. It's not really something to like or dislike.

[DrFfybes]

The new(er) system simply counts years in any kind of school. Which is a little more consistent since the break between middle and senior schools varies between council areas. The old system could be inconsistent, like the lack of a first form in most senior schools (mine too).

Year 1 is the first mandatory year in school, age 5-6. Although some infants schools have a pre-school, year 0.
So year 11 is 15-16, gcse year,.
Year 13 is upper 6th. Usually. Some places, especially "6th form colleges" still have upper and lower 6th, or even 6th and 7th.
Still starts Sep 1st.

Gryff

Ah, thanks! That makes a lot of sense. When I went to high school in 1975 at the age of 12 we were called the 2nd formers. I always did wonder what happened to the 1st form!

Gostevie

We started in the 3rd form, then had lower and upper 4th forms (or it might have been 5th, it was a while ago), as well as lower and upper 6th.

However like you I have no real clue on the new 'years' except that someone said "just add 5 to it and you'll be about right".

Paul

[stevensfo]

The new(er) system simply counts years in any kind of school. Which is a little more consistent since the break between middle and senior schools varies between council areas. The old system could be inconsistent, like the lack of a first form in most senior schools (mine too).

Year 1 is the first mandatory year in school, age 5-6. Although some infants schools have a pre-school, year 0.
So year 11 is 15-16, gcse year,.
Year 13 is upper 6th. Usually. Some places, especially "6th form colleges" still have upper and lower 6th, or even 6th and 7th.
Still starts Sep 1st.

Gryff

Ah, thanks! That makes a lot of sense. When I went to high school in 1975 at the age of 12 we were called the 2nd formers. I always did wonder what happened to the 1st form!

Gostevie

We started in the 3rd form, then had lower and upper 4th forms (or it might have been 5th, it was a while ago), as well as lower and upper 6th.

However like you I have no real clue on the new 'years' except that someone said "just add 5 to it and you'll be about right".

Paul

Did you ever read the Billy Bunter books? He was with other boys in 'The Remove' and although the context made it clear they were 4th years, it was never clear to me if this was some kind of lower or upper 4th year.

Steve

PS From the number of books I read, he must have spent at least 20 years in the same class, swiping tuck and reading the second book of Virgil's Aeneid.

[ten0rman]

My schooling was primary to age 11 when I passed the "scholarship" exam and went to grammar school. Straight into Form 2, there being no form 1. Then should have been through forms 3 & 4 followed by Remove and then form 5 where I took GCE 'O' levels. 6th form, two years, for GCE "A" level. (Not me, I left at age 16.)
In fact, in 1957, the grammar school changed everything by changing forms 2, 3, & 4 to become 1, 2, & 3. Remove disappeared being renamed as form 4, and thereafter all forms were strict 1 to 6.

My elder two children attended First, then Middle, and finally High school, ages 5 - 10, 11 - 13 & 14 onwards respectively. But they were known as Years 1 etc right up to Year 12 or whatever.

My youngest, in a different area had primary & "big" school, ie secondary, ages 5 -11, then 12 to 18, but known as Year 1 to year 12.

All I can say is - "What a blasted mess!".

I should point out that the years/ages given above are purely nominal. I with a mid-July birthday was always one of the youngest in my year. My youngest, with an October birthday, was towards the older end in his year.

ten0rman

[stevensfo]

My schooling was primary to age 11 when I passed the "scholarship" exam and went to grammar school. Straight into Form 2, there being no form 1. Then should have been through forms 3 & 4 followed by Remove and then form 5 where I took GCE 'O' levels. 6th form, two years, for GCE "A" level. (Not me, I left at age 16.)
In fact, in 1957, the grammar school changed everything by changing forms 2, 3, & 4 to become 1, 2, & 3. Remove disappeared being renamed as form 4, and thereafter all forms were strict 1 to 6.

My elder two children attended First, then Middle, and finally High school, ages 5 - 10, 11 - 13 & 14 onwards respectively. But they were known as Years 1 etc right up to Year 12 or whatever.

My youngest, in a different area had primary & "big" school, ie secondary, ages 5 -11, then 12 to 18, but known as Year 1 to year 12.

All I can say is - "What a blasted mess!".

I should point out that the years/ages given above are purely nominal. I with a mid-July birthday was always one of the youngest in my year. My youngest, with an October birthday, was towards the older end in his year.

ten0rman

Thanks so much for that! I've wondered for decades about what the 'Remove' actually meant. Somebody once told me that it was the year for those who had been obliged to repeat the 4th year, which always seemed strange. Yes, now it makes sense.

All I can say is - "What a blasted mess!".

Yes. I have two aunts (now retired) who were teachers, so I know how many walls were dented by teachers banging their heads against them. You just have to do an internet search to see how the requirements for trainee teachers change all the time; strict 'Knowledge of Maths and English' criteria after numerous complaints about falling literacy standards among teachers closely followed by removal of those criteria following worries about a lack of new teachers! Repeat ad nauseam. Then exam grading systems changed from ABCDE etc to some other weird system.
Didn't Monty Python make fun of it somewhere? John Cleese as a teacher explaining "Look, it's perfectly simple. Boys in the upper school will put blazers on the upper peg and PE clothes on the lower peg, unless it's a weekend when they will put blazers on the lower peg, bags on the bench with upper peg reserved for the lower school, unless it's a half-holiday when...."

Good training for those destined for the Civil service!

Steve

[swill453]

I went through the comprehensive system in Scotland in the 60s and 70s - we did primary P1 to P7, then secondary S1-S6, simple. As far as I know it remains thus.

Scott.

[AF62]

Ah, thanks! That makes a lot of sense. When I went to high school in 1975 at the age of 12 we were called the 2nd formers. I always did wonder what happened to the 1st form!

Gostevie

We started in the 3rd form, then had lower and upper 4th forms (or it might have been 5th, it was a while ago), as well as lower and upper 6th.

However like you I have no real clue on the new 'years' except that someone said "just add 5 to it and you'll be about right".

Paul

Did you ever read the Billy Bunter books? He was with other boys in 'The Remove' and although the context made it clear they were 4th years, it was never clear to me if this was some kind of lower or upper 4th year.

Steve

PS From the number of books I read, he must have spent at least 20 years in the same class, swiping tuck and reading the second book of Virgil's Aeneid.

With my school (a grammar which is now a private school) we also started in the 3rd form, as although I didn't go there, I believe the 1st and 2nd forms were in the associated prep school.

If memory serves me correct, it progressed through the 3rd form (11-12), 4th form, 5th form, Lower Remove, Upper Remove, then the Lower Sixth and the Upper Sixth.

[stevensfo]

I went through the comprehensive system in Scotland in the 60s and 70s - we did primary P1 to P7, then secondary S1-S6, simple. As far as I know it remains thus.

Scott.

I have to say that the Scottish equivalent of A-levels always seemed preferable to that in England, since it doesn't force children to specialise at such a young age. However, the real advantage is not changing the law over the 10 days when you're allowed to take kids out of school. That was a stupid thing to do, destroyed respect between parents and schools, made life harder for everyone and encouraged lying, since parents just claim their kids are sick, rather than be open about it. My own sister did that and was nervous for a while that someone might ask about her son's nice suntan!

Steve


Steve.

[redsturgeon]

Moderator Message:
Thread closed as requested by the OP