I don&#x27;t see why you need to change ratio. Just put kids in grade 1 when they&#x27;re ready, rather than when they&#x27;re 6, and work from there. The challenge (and most of the point) is to remove the negative bias both teachers and children have against being &quot;behind&quot; by one or more grades.<p>Reversion to the mean happens. Ability to do e.g. most kinds of arithmetic eventually arrives in everybody by the time they&#x27;re 13 or so, yet we say the kids who can multiply at 6 are &quot;gifted&quot; and the ones who can&#x27;t until 13 are &quot;disabled&quot;. Neither of these labels tend to still apply in any practical sense once the base skill <i>is</i> learned, and yet you&#x27;re stuck being treated differently by the educational system, stuck in a different &quot;track&quot;, because you took to some things &quot;early&quot; or &quot;late&quot;.<p>Removing that systemic effect would be the best thing we could do for education. The first degree of the Taylor-series of solutions probably looks like figuring out each child&#x27;s &quot;average&quot; developmental age, and trying to start kids in school so that everyone in grade 1 has the same development level, rather than the same age. The second degree would probably involve separating school into &quot;subjects&quot; at a much earlier level, such that a child could be placed in grade 3 math but grade 1 reading, rather than ending up frustrated in a totally-grade-1 or totally-grade-3 classroom.<p>(The <i>analytical</i> solution is likely something like a &quot;flipped classroom&quot; MOOC+Montessori model, where recorded lectures are taken in at home, while school is effectively a huge library full of tutors and labs and self-testing apparatuses, with a micro-skill &quot;tech-tree&quot; being filled in by each test, and procedurally-generated tests being able to be repeated until each micro-skill can be achieved at 100% fluency. But don&#x27;t look for <i>that</i> any time soon, unless Bill Gates or Elon Musk decides to fund one.)