Underachieving children could be forced to spend an extra year in primary school under proposals unveiled by the Conservatives.
Eleven-year-old pupils would be compelled to resit their final year with children a year younger, while their peers started secondary school.
Why are the children failing in the first place though. If it is the crap teaching then what could will another year at the same school do? If they are as thick as pig shit (politicians rarely acknowledge that some kids are simply dumb) then what good will it do, will they have to stay for another year if they are still failing? The only circumstances where it might be useful are where a child has had a particular but temporary problem that has been addressed satisfactorily and can now move on.
Come to think of it I really don't think this is the kind of policy that should be decided centrally for the entire country, leave it to individual schools or to local authorities to set the policy. It does at least mean that Labour put the repellent
Proposals for what the Tories have called a ‘remedial year’ would stigmatise the very children who need extra help. They would increase class sizes and make it difficult for teachers and parents to plan ahead.”How would it increase class sizes, does McKnight think that the 'stay behinds' are going to split amoeba like into two separate entities if they stay behind?