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.

Some areas do have them - my youngest nephew went to one. However, around 50% of his year (including him) left to go to secondary school for Y7 anyway instead of staying on at primary school, because they all felt ready for it.

Some kids find the move to secondary school difficult, but most manage the change perfectly well. All children mature at different rates and I think lots of kids are absolutely itching to get away from primary school to be in a more grown-up environment. I don't think the majority of 13 and 14-year-olds want to be at school with 8-year-olds, really.

I also don't really think that the things you mention - the stricter environment, the uniform, the having to remember the right books etc - are any easier to get used to at 13 than they are at 11. Kids don't struggle with those things because they're 11; they struggle with them because they haven't done them before, and changing schools at 13-14 wouldn't help.

And the point about getting changed after PE is just weird. You think girls are less embarrassed at puberty at 13 than they are at 11?! And plenty of schools don't make them shower after PE anyway. Mine never did.

Basically, I think it's pretty normal and reasonable to expect the first few weeks of secondary school to be a bit stressful - not because the kids are 11 but simply because it's a new environment and a big change. But a big change is stressful at any time and the vast majority of kids get through it with only a few wobbles here and there.

Are you losing families in your area?

I move around different parts of London and some schools are closing in inner London because families with children are moving to outer London and further a field. However the buildings get reused for something else they are sold off quickly as it is land that can be developed.

It's a still a 3-tier system where I live.

We have yrs 1-5 primary, 6-8 middle school, 9-11 high school (plus 12+13 6th form as usual).

I am also in the USA and Middle Schools can be hellish. You are putting all the kids together in one building who are hitting puberty with a vengeance and obsessed with peer approval (11-14) yet not mature enough to have developed critical thinking.

The result is noone younger than them so they understand they are older and need to be role models and responsible, and noone older so they can compare themselves and realize how immature they are.

I went to a state school in London where we had a Lower School and Upper School in separate buildings but we did all see each other a lot and the older students had leadership roles and interacted with us a lot. That seemed to be a good compromise.

My school effectively had this because it was split across two sites- one for what were the 1st-3rd years, and one for 4th and 5th year and 6th form. It meant that when you started “big school” you didn’t really come into contact with anyone more than two years older, and that made it a lot less daunting. I think most people liked it- lower school was cosier, and upper school had a more adult environment (obviously not really, but it felt it). I guess it would be annoying for parents doing pick up and drop off at two different places, but that wasn’t a thing 30 years ago, it would have been social suicide.

Why can't we just work on making KS3 more pastoral and kinder to the children? Why do they need to be in a separate building? None of the things you mention need a whole new school to accomplish, just better standards in the existing high schools.

And I totally agree with the people saying you won't be able to staff them. Neither primary nor secondary teachers would want to teach UKS2/KS3. I became a primary teacher because I like working with younger children not pre-teens or teenagers. Even within primary schools, the teachers who thrive and do well in UKS2 often have a very different demeanour and skill set to those who teach Year 4 and below.

Infants and juniors may have been phased out in some areas, but not in my area. My DC will be going to an infant school next year, they actually work well here as the buildings and playgrounds are tailored to the younger kids and it’s a nice transition from nursery and not so scary. I’m not sure I agree with secondary though as where would they get all the teachers from as they would need specialist teachers for the subjects.

I went to a middle school moving up to High in year 8 the school turned into a Secondary 15 or so years ago.

I think the system would work well, often you have teachers who have a preference over teaching KS3 and 4, I'd have probably stayed in teaching had I been able to specialise in the year 5 - 8 age range like a Canadian colleague I once had had done.

It was noticeable returning after COVID when year groups were separated that the year 7s actually still played playground games well into the school year whereas normally when on a mixed space during unstructured time it stops pretty swiftly in September

I can see why middle schools suit many children, and I have family in that system - generally it is well liked in the area. It does depend on the child though. The transition to middle school was hard on my autistic nephew, he was just settling at primary and was very young for the upheaval to "big school", and then there will be a second transition to "really big" school to cope with. My other older relatives coped a lot better.

I don't recognise your description of secondary really. I know some schools are like that, but my dc's school is not overly strict on uniform etc and has been very nurturing, despite the high expectations on travelling between lessons/organising their own time etc.

I think decent secondary schools have a longer transition period for year 7-8 to give children the chance to get used to the secondary environment.

Certainly my school in the 80s did this. In y7-8 you stayed with your form for the majority of lessons, there was less moving about, and teachers were more lenient with children forgetting or being late. We had a "junior canteen" so the youngest weren't mixing with older years for lunch. We also had prefects who accompanied all year 7 children between lessons, and this went on for at least a term or so. The prefects would also help if you lost something and needed to know where lost property was or anything like that.

When my DD started secondary there was none of that, and teachers very strict right from the first day. It puts the fear of god into sensitive, more immature children.

We have middle schools in my corner of W Yorks. Y6-Y8. It's marvellous. It lets children grow up and away from first school a bit sooner - because not that many 10/11 year olds really want to hang out with 4 year old- but also softens the jump to the harshness and hard work of high school. As a PP, yes, they do have to take their options in their first year at high school, but they've had a term and a half to get to know the textures a bit, and it helps kids focus on the subjects rather than the teacher.

There is a lot of transition activity between first school/middle at the end of Y5, and again from middle/high in Y8.

I experienced both the two tier system and the three tier system as I moved in year 8 from a secondary school in one part of the country to a middle school in another part. It was odd, almost like being back in primary school, to me it felt like we were babied too much but that's because I had already adjusted to secondary. I expect if I had gone through it from the beginning it would have felt like a step up from primary but a step down from secondary (high school in that area).

In the country I live in now they have lower school from (6 if preschool is in a school instead of a nursery)7-13 and then upper school from 13-16, then high school at 16+ so they are in the more nurturing primary school environment until the equivalent of year 8, then equivalent of year 9 go to upper school which feels a better age for the stricter environment and more responsibilities they have there.

They used to be the norm, I went to one. As a secondary school teacher, I wouldn't want them to return. KS3 would be a mess and students are at upper school for one year before choosing GCSE options.

I went to a Middle school (Suffolk) and it worked really well. First year we did most classes in the one classroom but with different teachers, and by the 4th year all classes were in subject area classrooms so the transition to Upper school wasn't so big. I think Suffolk moved away to two tier a while ago though.

I went to 3 primary schools (forces) so moving schools wasn't an issue for me.

I went to a middle school, we started in year 6 and left in year 9, it was exactly the same as any secondary school, apart from leaving before GCSE year.

I went to first, middle and secondary schools (Yorkshire) and did really like it. The middle school was a good half way house between the very small first school (lower primary) and the enormous secondary school. The secondary did have 2 different catchments so some pupils arrived in year 1 of secondary and my area arrived into year 2 of secondary. I personally liked the system and really enjoyed middle school. We were 'grown up' compared to the young children in first school, but although middle school was noticably bigger it was still run more like a primary school, with a cosy feel. I really think it was a better arrangement than the primary/secondary arrangement that my DC had (different area).

There are middle schools where I live (US). The results are mixed. A lot of their success depends on good pastoral care. 11-12-13 is a difficult three years of life for some kids, and suddenly finding yourself in a large middle school with lots of kids you don't know can be challenging for some. The schools around here used to all be K-8, but they were narrowed down, first to K-6 with junior high for two years, then to K-5, with three years of middle school, followed by four years of high school. The reasons for the switch were financial and also in line with educational theory.

My own DCs went to a private K-8 school, meaning the school catered for about 450 kids aged 5 to 13/14. It worked really well. The building itself was divided into floors for the different sections, with the middle school and elementary sections separate. They changed classrooms and teachers throughout the day.

The middle school years from 5th grade to 8th grade featured a lot of team building and a lot of opportunities for leadership in the school - student council, a buddy programme, drama and robotics clubs, and sports, debate, and academic teams. My DCs settled into their huge high school very well.

So, you'd introduce specialist teaching, and movement round the building at Y4, but have a more primary rstyle response to uniform and equipment?

We already have a 3 tier system - as schools stop at 16 in our area. So, 4 minimium schools?? Not keen.

I had infants.. Junior and high school. My younger sister had infants middle and high.. so stayed longer at middle and 3 years at the high.
It's the high schools that have got it wrong these days.. they're trying to run them like an army camp.
They're more concerned with attendance than learning... thank goodness my Grandkids are home educated.. eldest is now at Uni after being home educated.

The introduction of the National Curriculum and Key Stages is what killed off the 3 tier system because the year groups don't match to the Key Stages. A middle school has to cover half of KS2 and half of KS3.
I think it could work as KS3 (Lower Secondary) being "Middle School" and either in a separate building to KS4/5 or having shared grounds/facilities but kept apart.
This means we could have more specialist "High Schools" ie for Year 10 upwards.
I would have it that every child goes to a catchment Primary, catchment Middle (years 7 -9) and the High School could be a mix of comprehensive ones and specialist ones and people can choose the type to send their child too.

The more transitions you have the more kids drop between the gaps and lose progress.

This. And ND children are usually affected by transitions more than NT children - so better to reduce the number of transitions than to increase them.

If children find it difficult to settle into secondary, the answer is better pastoral care in year 7, more taster days in year 6 etc, not to change the entire system!

Btw no secondary age kid showers after PE anymore.

I taught in this system - we had primary, middle and upper. I taught in an upper school in South Bradford. It was a much calmer school as yr9 came into the school as the youngest rather than having been in the school for 2 years and then 'really finding their feet' and some being quite a challenge by year 9. However, no disrespect to middle school teachers but there was quite a lot of coasting along in middle school without any formal exams to work towards. You would really need to look at the curriculum on offer.

I live in an area with middle schools (yrs 5-8) and it's not all good.

The first schools are great and nurturing for Reception and up to Yr2, then they become too small for some kids, and there are no sports teams etc.

Middle school is a great wasteland of pointlessness, with no accountability at any stage; there is no setting so some children are bored, some are adrift.

Then you have the shock of a vast school and GCSEs with very little run up, especially as they do the syllabus over 3 years.

We took DD out and into a primary after Yr 2 as we are very close to the border of another LEA. A lot move at 11.

I think the main reason that middle schools largely died out was due to the national curriculum and associated testing. Originally there were SATs at 7, 11 and 14, which fitted well with the primary/secondary changeover, and infant/junior where that happened. In middle school areas, middle and upper schools were being judged on pupils' performance in tests only one or two years after they joined the school.

I suspect reorganisation from 2 tier to 3 tier would be rather more problematic than going from 3 tier to 2 tier, and there are other priorities for improving our education system at the moment.