To think middle schools should be introduced in the UK?

[Serrina]

The transition from primary school to high school is very difficult for a lot of children at 11 and there's very little preparation for it. Somehow they're expected to jump from a nurturing primary school environment - which is often like a second home to many children, and spending the day in their own classroom with their own teacher and all their friends, then all of a sudden to a regimental high school system of registration, then having to go to different classes at various points in the day, with little more than a couple of minutes to get from one class to another and being penalised if they're "late" despite the fact the next class may be at the opposite end of a huge building than their previous one.

They have to get used to not just one new teacher, but several. Uniform rules are generally stricter, blazers aren't allowed to be removed no matter how hot it is, and in early September when school starts it usually is still quite hot.
Teachers in high school generally aren't as kind as primary school ones, if a child is upset or distressed they're expected to just "get on with it" they aren't comforted and reassured as they would be in primary.

P.E. lessons are more regimental, and you're expected to shower afterwards which is distressing particularly for many girls at this stage, as they are going through many changes and might not feel comfortable with this.

You're penalised for not having the right equipment on the right days, which isn't such a big deal in primary schools.

They're only 11. They've come straight from the school they've attended since they were 4 years old, and all of a sudden they're sharing a building for more than 6 hours a day with 15 and 16 year olds. And high school children can be brutal.

I know Year 6 is meant to be the "preparation year" but I don't think it's enough. They're still very much in a primary school environment. And outside of maybe one or two induction days, they don't have much help with the transition at all. I think this is one thing our cousins across the pond get right in terms of the education system, by having middle schools (previously called junior high schools) as a kind of in-between stage to help ease them in. I really think this kind of system would be beneficial here.

We had them in my area and they worked very well. They were largely phased out for financial reasons- extra head teachers to pay, extra buildings to maintain. There are some still remaining within about half an hour of where I live but they are under huge pressure now to amalgamate into the two tier system.

who is going to staff these schools? If you want specialist teachers you are going to need to have enough students to fill a specialist teacher's timetable. So for science, for example, if you want a physics, and chemistry and a biology teacher, and the have 10 classes each, and each class has 1 lesson a week in each subject that is a minimum of 10 form entry, and each teacher teaches 20 lessons a week, 10 year 7 and 10 year 8. But if you want a head of science as well, to plan the curriculum, manage the staff and the budget, and they teach 10 lessons a week too, that is a minimum of 15 form entry. And if you want two full time music teachers, teaching each class one lesson a week, then you are now looking at 20 form entry.....

And you want pastoral heads as well? And a librarian, and lunch time staff? Where are they all going to come from?

And you want this to be a small, nurturing school? It is ridiculous to limit a school to 2 ks3 year groups.

I was at school in the 80/90s. I attended infant school 4-9. Middle school 9-13 and senior school 13-16. Worked well for me as I was badly bullied at senior school so at least it was only 3 years not 8 as it is now. I think kids stayed kids a bit longer too, although there was no sm either

My sons school has an infants which is 4-7. Juniors 7-11 and seniors starts at 11.

I completely agree, OP. There just need to be a hell of a lot more schools full stop. 1000+ and big class sizes has always been a nonsense, and middle school makes a lot of sense.

We do need to redesign the education system and the curriculum from scratch as they did in Finland.

In my area we have infant schools (R-year 2), junior schools (years 3-6) and senior school.

No they do the key stage 3 circulum (I don't believe it change much at all when they changed the GCSE circulum) first, but this is spread over year 7,8 &9. Then they start the GCSE circulum, they just start it early then they did before they don't miss out anything. They just have to make it fit. One of the reasons why they don't do a lot of fun stuff at high school as they don't have time in the circulum to fit it in. I'm assuming before they would go over topics more to make sure they understood everything.

It's another reason as far as I'm concerned why middle schools are a bad idea, a lot of teachers I work with said they got a lot of students start all at different capability levels and trying to get them upto speed in one year was a problem. With the circulum change that must be even more difficult for those still in 3 tire systems.

We changed about 7 years ago around here.

I do think the way they did it where I lived and the way they are moving over to here is better. I had primary then high school, but there where no 6th forms unless private. We all went to 6th form college which meant the college had a lot more facilities for A-level/vocational courses. I didn't even realise 6th forms existed until I went to university and discovered other students who'd stayed at school.

They are doing the same here when they moved to 2 tire they build a large 6th form and quite a few of the 6th forms in the high schools have since closed. They treat them more like adults and most kids seem to really like this. Also the 6th form has fantastic facilities and attracts really good teachers.

So high school is then only 11-16year old, which works better. They change school at the right times ie after key stage 2, Then after their GCSE'S.

There's a lot of information to support the removal of middle school.

Children are more likely to to develop an eating disorder at a younger age.

Education in KS3 may not be specialist enough to provide the best opportunity

Reduction in subject awareness can limit gcse options.

Can limit secondary school choices

Age 11 children can really flourish with independence and opportunity at secondary.

I'm interested to know what the correlation is between middle schools and eating disorders, I tried looking online and can't find anything on this. I would have thought most children around this age would be at risk of this, in fact surely sending 11 year olds into an environment with fashion and image conscious 15 and 16 year olds would make this more likely??

That's interesting

I've found that my middle-school-educated DC have really benefited from having subject specialist teachers from Y6, and have had an extra year to explore the wider range of potential gcse subjects - our high school and the two feeder middle schools work together to align on this.

It's interesting reading comments from people who went through the 3 tier system (now mostly gone) and it being called a failure etc.
But in the private ("public") school system it was the same age groupings.
Pre-prep (in really old times sometimes called Kindergarten) was for up to age 8 or 9, Prep was up to age 13 and then senior school.
Many private schools still are like that (like the one Prince George and siblings are at goes up to Year 8 (age 13), Eton etc start at 13.
I wonder why it works in the private system but didn't in the state?
Don't most private schools follow the National Curriculum so will have the same problem of Prep school covering half of KS2 and half of 3.

I imagine one of the reasons it still works OK in the private sector is staff recruitment and small.class sizes. They will have better teachers and smaller class sizes (although class size isn't strongly related to outcomes). One of the big issue locally here before the change was the diffulty in recruiting specialist teachers for middle school. Therefore those in year 7&8 weren't always being taught by specialist teachers.

Heck we have the same issue with high schools, you will find even a well staffed high school, that some year 7&8 classes with be taught in science by non science teachers. But at lest they will get a specialist teacher some of the time.

Private schools have the resources to do what the heck they like - or did until recently. State schools have to be careful about things that are merely “nice” and cost loads of money.

Even in the private school sector, the traditional pre-prep, prep and secondary from 13 seems to be dying out? Most private secondary schools start from 11 these days, I believe. I think it’s only a handful of traditional ones that stick to the old structure.

And with more financial pressure on small private schools for number of reasons, I expect we will see more of a trend of pre-prep and prep schools being merged into what are effectively private primaries, even if they continue to use the name “prep.”

@user1477391263 yes a lot of private schools have switched to changing schools at 11.
I was reading something the other day about children in Years 7 and 8 in prep schools being very much the "lost" years.

If you read the full thread you will see that it HAS been tried in the State Sector : in an area near me is still in place and has been for decades.

Some places have found it doesn't work well. People I know in the system are varied in their responses. It isn't a cure all.

@Justifiedcheese yes you are correct. The current English 3 tier system - which is similar pattern to the traditional private one - has been "tried" for decades.
The main reason for phasing it out though seems to be because of the National Curriculum being bought in which bases the Key Stages on the Infant (5-7) - Junior (7-11) - Secondary (11-16) age groups rather than the First (5-8/9) - Middle (8/9 - 12/13) - High (13+).
Many private schools have switched to the National Curriculum Key Stages too which is why schools that once started at 13 now start at 11.
However I think what the OP was suggesting was Middle Schools that are Key Stage 3 schools - Years 7, 8 and 9. Lower secondary basically. So still secondary school but away from the older GCSE/A-level lot.
That would be different to the existing system some parts of England have which is a combo of half primary/half early secondary.

I think you just have to provide more support in years 6 and 7 such as ensuring they have the right uniform and equipment. Most schools don't enforce showers and newbuilds may not have them at all. Try not to let your anxieties filter to the children. We have middle school here in Worcestershire and we just worry twice instead when year 5 go into middle school and again in year 9 when they go into enormous high schools with over 300 in each year. Also remember that strict schools usually have better behaviour so are better for most children.

No need. 95% kids transition just fine.

And what is the source of that statistic?