Why have you added the bits in blue and red for Grade 8?

I thought year 4 in Oz was the same as year 5 in the UK?

I think a year 5 child in the UK will have been in full time school for longer than a year 4 oz child. Here in WA the difference is 1 school year. That can make quite a difference.

But in the Uk you leave school at year 11 not 12.

BTW are you just trying to use semantics to justify Australia's poor showing?

" It assesses the knowledge and skills of pupils aged 9-10 (otherwise known as grade 4) and 13-14 (grade 8)."

Are you really saying that an internationally recognised test (recognised by both Australian Council for Educational Research and the UK's National Foundation for Educational Research - both well respected academic bodies) has such a fundamental flaw that nobody but you has seen it?

Don't you think that the teaching unions of both countries would have pounced on something so fundamental as "England's kids are older when they took the test?"

I think you might be grasping at straws.

Do you think it might be something related to the fact that my daughter who in October 2008 was Grade 4 in Australia and yet in England she would have been in Grade 5? Or would that be too simple?

Thats correct but year 12 isn't compulsory here as far as I am aware. I was commenting on the testing ages of year 4 and 5 kids. Kids in the UK at year 5 have completed 1 extra year of full time schooling than a year 4 child here in WA.

I knew I was right.

But she would have been in school for 1 year longer in the UK, surely that must have some bearing on the test results that you and ABC are referring to. I am not being argumentative btw, just asking a question.

This is a really interesting point NB.

There is a lot of debate about when kids should start school. I used to believe that kids should start as young as possible.

But my experience of Australia and from talking to primary teachers and from reading about the experiences of some European countries I don't believe that any longer.

Starting school earlier will not necessarily lead to better achievement outcomes at aged 9 (or whatever). In fact one teacher told me that trying to get kids to write too early can cause major motor issues later which impact negatively.

However, if, globally, kids know, understand and can do more in certain countries compared with others and these countries happen to start their kids' formal education earlier than that clearly is a judgment on the academic effectiveness of the respective systems.

Because in the Uk they finish a year earlier than in Aus.

Not necessarily (see answer above). Some countries perform well and start school at aged 5 (Singapore). My daughter started full time education in WA at aged 5.

"Deborah Lawson from PAT (Professional Association of Taachers) said it was vital that children should have more freedom to play in nurseries without being told what to do by adults.

The government said primary schools followed an age-appropriate curriculum.

Speaking at the PAT annual conference, in Harrogate, Ms Lawson said: "There is evidence that by starting school earlier, our children are not better off than those children who are starting later.

"As practitioners and parents we have all seen children who really were not ready to start school."

(BBC)

And as I said before, if there was evidence that starting younger is better (which there doesn't appear to be) then surely that is still an indictment of the Australian system?
It isn't a race, it's about the best possible outcomes for kids - if Australia isn't getting those results because of the way it runs its system, then it's a crap system.

Yes I know that. It isn't relevant to this discussion.

I agree. My nephew has just started Reception. He has only just turned 4. He just isn't ready for the pressures that go with school.

Yes it is. You were refering to kids being in school a year longer in the Uk than Oz. That is your answer.