Why do our kids hate secondary school?

[noblegiraffe]

Together with the news from PISA that our teens are the unhappiest in Europe, new research shows that engagement and enjoyment of school falls off a cliff once kids leave primary and start secondary.

https://schoolsweek.co.uk/revealed-the-school-pupils-who-disengage-during-year-7-dip/

https://www.thedeveloperlive.co.uk/opinion/opinion/why-do-uk-teens-have-among-the-lowest-life-satisfaction-in-the-oecd

"It found that while engagement declines through school “in almost every country”, the magnitude “is more pronounced in England”, suggesting disengagement is not just a symptom of age “but something atypical” that is happening in England.

There has been lots and lots of discussion about the impact that social media is having on teen mental health - what about the impact of having to go to secondary schools that they clearly don't like?

My dc did computer science for GCSE...he had at least six different teachers and time where he had no teacher.....I lost count. It was an absolute disaster. He failed and I ended up telling him not to even worry.

Some teachers give homework, say an English or History essay to be done on Word, or a presentation on Powerpoint, but no one has taught the kids to use those systems!

My kids learned both Word and PowerPoint in primary school, my DS12 can use PowerPoint almost as well as I can.

Yes, we had an A-level computer science class without a teacher for a year as well as GCSE. The suggestion that schools aren't offering comp sci as an option because they're just behind the times

I've also taught Y7 computing (I think most maths teachers have been drafted in at some point) and the kids definitely know how to use word and PowerPoint from primary.

Computer Science, Business Studies, DT are all subjects where you can earn many times more in the private sector for less stress so very difficult to recruit for. My DC's school has one DT teacher for 800+ kids.

I'm an MFL teacher who did Latin A Level, but even I think it's bonkers to think it's necessary to teach language awareness via a dead language. It would be much more sensible to just teach it via English, then maybe do a tiny bit of Latin roots as part of the intro to French or Spanish. It's true that teaching MFL to kids who have done some Latin is easier, but that would also be true of teaching kids who had learned English grammar properly (not SATS-style with the dreaded fronted adverbials).

One of the many reasons school is difficult.

If you have sensory issues. If your school is really strict. If your blazer is shit. If you school is too hot. If you are poor and it's a worry to keep it wearable. Flappy sleeves in Y7 and too much wrist in Y9 or 10 or 11

It's like straws on the camels back. Not huge in itself but for some kids it's an issue.

Ds is supposed to be wearing a suit jacket in 6th form but it appears they do not police the wearing of coats... At least the jacket isn't wearing out on the peg at home!

Would scholl kids just wear jeans and hoodie if there was no uniform? Judging by the micro skirts and leggings they wear as uniform and British taste in fashion it could be anything.

Not an issue.

We wore anything at my school. This was the 80s - some had huge hair, garish make up (girls and boys), mohicans. Some wore jeans and t-shirts., dresses or the odd blazer Exactly as they wore out of school on an everyday basis. Teaching and learning still took place.

I went to a secondary school with no uniform (mid 90s) and in the main people wore jeans, t-shirts, hoodies etc. I don’t remember anyone wearing micro skirts (surely the only reason they do that in secondaries now is because the uniform is a skirt, and they try and make it look more ‘fashionable’?).
Clothing just wasn’t an issue. People wore what they were comfortable in.

And that’s why salaries need to reflect that. There’s no reason teachers all need to be paid the same amount, and in fact changing that might encourage more people with the needed skills to go into teaching subjects that will lead to future jobs. That requires investment.

It should also be possible, and even desirable, for some people to have, say, a career in IT or higher education which they do 4 days a week, and then one day a week they teach a couple of groups of GCSE/A Level students. That would have the added benefit of the school building links with businesses or universities, students getting a commercial/academic perspective (sometimes the ‘why is this important?’ Is missing in standard education and this would close that gap), and the IT worker/teacher could spot future talent. That’s a win-win-win. That’s a big ask and would revolutionise education. I don’t believe a degree or a PGCE is essential to being a good teacher (let’s face it, we all know some absolutely awful qualified teachers), and a ‘light touch’ short qualification should be all that’s needed for these ‘industry educators’.

I’d also like to see all teachers do a year or two in business/industry before going into education to give them the opportunity to develop the ‘real world’ skills that help them contextualise their own practice and give additional credibility, and build connections to support pupils into further training and work.

@MayaPinion

And that’s why salaries need to reflect that. There’s no reason teachers all need to be paid the same amount, and in fact changing that might encourage more people with the needed skills to go into teaching subjects that will lead to future jobs.

Nail on the head there. Sadly, the powerful unions won't allow it. It's why schools have to offer golden handshakes/burseries, etc to get "In demand" teachers as the unions just won't have differential wages across different subjects.

It's the same with national pay bargaining. Cheaper areas to live should have lower wages (like in the private sector) and high cost areas should have higher wages (like the private sector). But the public sector unions won't have any of it. It leads to drastic shortages of workers in high price areas but then the public sector workers are the "better off" workers living in the "naice" areas of low cost/run down areas of the country.

@MayaPinion

It should also be possible, and even desirable, for some people to have, say, a career in IT or higher education which they do 4 days a week, and then one day a week they teach a couple of groups of GCSE/A Level students. That would have the added benefit of the school building links with businesses or universities, students getting a commercial/academic perspective (sometimes the ‘why is this important?’ Is missing in standard education and this would close that gap), and the IT worker/teacher could spot future talent. That’s a win-win-win. That’s a big ask and would revolutionise education. I don’t believe a degree or a PGCE is essential to being a good teacher (let’s face it, we all know some absolutely awful qualified teachers), and a ‘light touch’ short qualification should be all that’s needed for these ‘industry educators’.

Again, nail on the head. It's what I did at our local college. I've had no formal teaching training, no teaching qualifications. I'm a chartered accountant. I did a couple of evenings per week teaching accountancy at our local college to 16-18 year olds and adults. The pay was absolute crap and they struggled to get teachers, which is why they took me on as someone with no teaching experience at all - let's face it, they were desperate! Accountants capable of earning £big per hour aren't going to teach at £small per hour! At the time, I'd left my full time employment and was setting up my own client base, so had a bit of time on my hands, so it kind of worked for me, and because I found I enjoyed it, I stayed for a few years. No one was deceived, the college and I both made it clear to students I was an accountant and not a teacher! There were several modules being taught and I did two of them, "proper" teachers did the others. I ended up the "go to" for students struggling with the other modules too, as I could bring real life experience and examples into areas where they struggled with "made up" text book examples.

Your idea is an excellent example of the kind of "Blue sky" thinking we should be doing to tackle the schools problems. Stop doing things we've always done and start looking at new ideas.

It's the same with national pay bargaining. Cheaper areas to live should have lower wages (like in the private sector) and high cost areas should have higher wages (like the private sector). But the public sector unions won't have any of it. It leads to drastic shortages of workers in high price areas but then the public sector workers are the "better off" workers living in the "naice" areas of low cost/run down areas of the country

I live in a semi-rural area, and there's always been huge issues with recruitment in schools. No one wants to travel this far out

Also, there's been a definite uptick in blazer requirements in the past few decades. Used to be they were more for the posh schools. It's particularly daft since office wear has only got more casual during that time. The number of jobs where students might actually need to wear that kind of clothing has reduced as the uniform requirements have become more formal.

Yes, another case where the education system is still in the dark ages and hasn't moved with the times. Nothing will improve until the whole system is modernised in terms of societal, economic and organisational changes of the past 50 years.

Across the whole thread I think various posters have nailed the various factors.

I noticed a huge deterioration in my children’s wellbeing and engagement when their grant maintained secondary school became an academy. As a parent, communications from the school dropped dramatically, staff retention went down, meaning that there was little continuity.

My DS did electronics GCSE instead

What a lot of schools have lost (sacrificed) is proper parental engagement.

Private schools and grammars tend to have strong PTA's, "friends of" groups, alumni groups, which forge strong links between parents, between parents and schools, between parents & teachers, between ex-pupils and current pupils, etc.

Nowadays, schools seem to want to exist in a vacuum and regard parents as some kind of enemy, where contact needs to be minimised. Kids are forgotten (erased from memory) when they leave, never to be seen nor heard of again.

And, no, it's not always about money.

Parental groups and alumni groups often ran/run on volunteers, and put very little strain on the schools staff and other resources, in fact many make a significant net contribution to the school via fund raising etc.

"Out of school" activities like sponsored walks/runs, annual party nights, jumble sales, etc can really bring parents and school management together.

My son's school (with a long history, but still a state school), did a lot of that. It also had an on-site school shop selling second hand uniform and other equipment like calculators, branded pens, umbrellas, mouse mats, mugs, non uniform branded hoodies, etc., revision books, etc - operated by volunteers every Friday afternoon and Saturday morning! They also had stalls at open days, parents evenings, sports days etc., selling refreshments, revision books and calculators. They did a roaring trade on the transition days and first day of term for new starters - selling the "official" school calculator and other Maths equipment (geometry sets etc), second hand uniform, etc., and refreshments.

Their "Friends of" group who did all that regularly donated tens of thousands worth of equipment to the school, things like CAD & other equipment for the tech clubs & societies, a new lighting & sound control system for the drama dept and school hall, sports kits for the school sports teams, etc. Apparently they weren't allowed to buy stuff for anything required by the curriculum, but could buy stuff for things that weren't part of it, i.e. after school clubs & societies, etc, so mostly for "enrichment" rather than exams and league tables.

Because the alumni are also kept in the loop with "Friends of" newsletters, etc., many of them remain active and engaged, i.e. coming back to give careers talks and attending careers fairs, or just attending the social events if they still live in the area.

Like I say, minimal strain on school staffing and resources as it's all done by volunteers, being past and present parents, alumni, and even retired teachers.

Correlation does not equal causation though. In that same time we had 14 years of Conservative government who systematically starved schools of funds leading to a much reduced service and recruitment and retention becoming a national crisis.

Lots of schools were crap before the last 14 years. They've been going downhill and not moving with the times for probably 50 years, going right back to the introduction of comps and the scrapping of the old grammar/sec mod system. It's certainly not a recent development, though no doubt at all, that the Tories made things worse, but things were bad and heading downhill anyway!

Exactly and Labour are managing further decline

No doubt lots more "change" that just changes back to how things were before the last change, rather than actually looking forward and moving forward.

Education changes over the past 50 years have been largely re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. Completely pointless. Yo-Yo-ing from one thing to another and then back again. Take a bit out of the curriculum, put it back in a few years later, bring in a bit of continuous/teacher assessment and then take it out again. All so pointless and damaging.

All the while reducing grade boundaries to "create" the improvement in headline results that the politicians want to see.

Grade boundaries are set in a way that specifically avoids grade inflation.

Since 1975, there has has been

Labour 4 years as a minority government/non existent majority
Conservative 1979 - 1997 (18 years)
Labour 1997-2010 (13 years)
Conservative coalition 2010-2015 (5 years)
Conservative 2015-2024 (9 years)

Which means the Conservatives were directly responsible for education for 32 of the last 50 years. 64% of the time (-ish, I'm not calculating it to decimals based on number of months or days). Wouldn't the Conservatives therefore bear getting on for around two thirds of the responsibility as a result?

I'm not the one making political points here. I'm quite away that ALL parties have screwed up education and made things worse rather than better.

For a lot of that time, local authorities were a further tier of responsibility with local councils having influence over parts of the school system too, and that would be a mix of all different political parties including liberal/libdem controlled councils.