Our Future Entrance Exams

One of the most quietly influential decisions in a child’s education is how we decide where they begin. Not what school they attend or even what curriculum they follow, but the simple question of which class or grade they are placed in.

Most education systems answer this by age. Others experiment with entrance exams, readiness tests or aptitude-based placement. On the surface, this feels like a practical administrative choice. In reality, it shapes how we measure school performance, how children experience success or failure and how fair the system truly is.

Age-based placement has long been defended on developmental grounds. Children of similar ages tend to share comparable emotional, social and physical stages, even if their academic skills vary. This makes classrooms easier to manage and, in theory, should also protect children from the social consequences of being significantly younger or older than their peers. Yet the evidence consistently shows that age-based systems produce strong short-term differences in academic outcomes. The oldest children in a year group reliably perform better on early assessments than the youngest. They score higher on standardised tests, are more likely to be labelled “high achieving,” and less likely to be flagged for learning difficulties. The problem is that these advantages are often mistaken for ability rather than maturity. Schools are then compared, ranked and judged based on performance data that quietly rewards institutions with older cohorts or penalises those with younger intakes. When league tables and inspection outcomes rely heavily on early attainment measures, they are not just comparing schools - they are unintentionally comparing birth months. Over time, this distorts how we interpret “school quality,” particularly in the early years and primary education.

Entrance exams and ability-based placement promise a more meritocratic alternative. In theory, children are placed where they academically belong, rather than where their date of birth dictates. Schools that use this approach often argue that it allows teaching to be better targeted and learning to be more efficient. When you look at raw performance data, selective or test-based systems often appear to outperform age-based ones. Their pupils achieve higher exam scores, progress faster through curricula and produce more impressive short-term results.

But this is where comparisons become misleading. Much of the apparent success of exam-based placement reflects selection, not schooling. Research consistently shows that once you control for prior attainment and socioeconomic background, the performance advantage of selective systems largely disappears. In other words, these schools are often effective at identifying high performers rather than creating them. Judging schools purely on exam outcomes without accounting for who they admit risks rewarding exclusion rather than excellence.

The long-term picture complicates things further...

While age advantages strongly influence early academic performance, their effects fade over time. By adolescence, younger children in a cohort often catch up academically. Long-term outcomes such as educational attainment, employment and earnings show far weaker links to school entry age than early test scores suggest.

Ability-based placement also shows mixed long-term results. While it can benefit high-achieving students in some contexts, it does not consistently improve overall outcomes and can have negative effects on those placed in lower groups. Being labelled “behind” early on can shape a child’s academic identity, motivation and confidence for years. Once placed, movement between levels is often limited, turning a supposedly flexible system into a fixed academic hierarchy.

Equity sits at the centre of this debate. Entrance exams do not exist in a vacuum. Performance on tests is closely tied to family income, access to early learning, language exposure and parental support. Children from more advantaged backgrounds are more likely to have encountered exam-style tasks and extra help long before they sit any formal assessment. Without significant safeguards, testing risks reproducing social inequality under the language of fairness and objectivity.

Age-based systems are not immune to inequity either. Younger children within a cohort are disproportionately represented among those diagnosed with special educational needs, referred for behavioural issues or perceived as “less capable.” The system does not merely observe differences; it amplifies them. In both models, children pay the price for structures designed around convenience and comparison rather than development.

Perhaps the deeper issue is not whether age or exams should determine placement, but how much weight we place on early performance at all. Education systems are under immense pressure to produce measurable outcomes quickly. Schools are compared, ranked and judged on data that often captures maturity, background or selection more than teaching quality. When short-term attainment becomes the primary measure of success, we lose sight of education’s longer arc.

A fairer system may not sit at either extreme. Age-based placement with greater flexibility, age-standardised assessments and delayed high-stakes comparisons could reduce early distortions. Equally, recognising readiness without rigid testing and supporting children rather than sorting them, would shift the focus from selection to growth. How we place children sends a powerful message about what we value. Whether we prioritise speed over development, competition over equity or short-term results over long-term impact is reflected not just in policy, but in classrooms, lives and futures.

The question is not simply where a child starts, but what kind of education system we are quietly building around that choice?