Why Year Levels Still Matter: What Some AI Proponents Are Missing

In conversations about AI and the future of education, I’ve seen a recurring idea: that grade levels should be obsolete. With technology enabling personalised learning at scale, some argue we no longer need to group students by age at all. It’s an attractive concept in theory - students progressing entirely at their own pace, unconstrained by age-based expectations.

But here’s the problem: this view misunderstands both what year levels are for and how differentiation already works in well-designed education systems.

As a former primary teacher in New South Wales, I worked for years in classrooms where students had a wide range of abilities, needs, and interests. That’s not new. What’s often overlooked by EdTech people is that systems like those in NSW already have a curriculum built around stages, not rigid grade levels. These stages span two years and are designed to support varied learning paths within a cohort... and students work and are assessed at their level of ability.

A student in Year 4 may be working at Stage 3 (Years 5 and 6) in maths and Stage 2 (Years 3 and 4) in English. That’s expected. Our five-point achievement scale (from ‘A’ to ‘E’) is built to reflect a student’s progress relative to their stage outcomes, not their age. This structure supports acceleration and support simultaneously - without removing students from their social and emotional peer group.

That matters.

Grouping students by age isn’t about admin convenience, it’s grounded in the reality of child development. Students greatly benefit from learning alongside peers who are at a similar stage socially and emotionally... not just academically. Year levels create shared experiences, stable peer relationships and a rhythm of growth that supports confidence and identity. If we were to disrupt that structure too radically in the name of personalisation, we risk isolating students from the developmental context they need to thrive.

This is where AI and technology can make a real impact. Not by eliminating year levels but by enhancing differentiation within them. By helping teachers identify individual needs earlier, personalise content delivery, and free up time for deeper engagement, technology can support the system we already have - rather than tear it down.

For example, AI powered tools can assist Learning Support teams by analysing student writing samples or assessment data to flag early signs of difficulty - often before they’re visible in the classroom. Teachers can use adaptive platforms to assign targeted practice or enrichment tasks without segregating students or adding to their workload. These aren’t replacements for human judgment but tools that amplify it. The result is more responsive teaching but most importantly... delivered within a stable, developmentally appropriate classroom environment.

And a final note about language. In Australia, like many countries, we speak in "years", not "grades". That’s more than a cultural difference. "Year" implies a period of time, a shared journey. "Grade" obviously suggests a ranking or score. The language we use reflects the values we carry into education reform - and we should choose carefully.

The future of education isn’t structureless. It’s structured well. Not year-free but better differentiated. Not driven by novelty but grounded in what works.

Let’s build on that.