Middle schools

[AuADHD]

My ASD/ADHD 11 year old Ds will be starting high school in September. I don’t know how the subject of middle schools came up but it got me thinking about how they might be great for children like my Ds.
I struggled so much with the transition to high school to the point of severe anxiety and school refusal. I went from a tiny two class class (year 5 and 6 together) where there was 19 of us in a tiny private school to a massive 6 classes of around 30 to a year secondary that was 2 buses away.

If a middle school had been an option I might have coped better. DS would certainly be less anxious about the transition and my 2 DDs who are also ASD/ADHD might also have coped better.

I know middle schools exist in some LAs but nothing up here where we live. I know we can’t start building a load of schools but I do wish there was a gentler option for children like mine who sre academically bright but struggle with the big change from primary to secondary. I wonder if it would help with school refusal and the amount of anxiety and mental health issues we see in children now? School is only one part of life but it’s such a big part.
The USA does things differently with middle schools and then high school to 18 instead of GCSEs at 16 then leaving for 6th form at a college.

I know our education system has a lot of faults and probably needs an overhaul but would this be a potential solution?

What about a prep school which goes up to year 8?

I went from primary to secondary aged 11. My husband did middle school and went to high school at 13 just for 3 years. We’re very old. I’ve always thought it weird that he only had 3 years at high school whereas he loved his school system and it really worked for him. But that was a very very long time ago. Our systems may have worked better back then for other reasons….teaching had more autonomy, smaller classes etc but it worked for him for whatever the reason.

some private prep schools also go to years 8 and sometimes 9 but gradually lots of them are dropping down just to year 6 because there’s not the demand or numbers.

We have a three tier system where I live in north east England (First School to Y4, Middle School Y5-8 then High School Y9+). There are pluses and minuses to both systems but I’ve been happy with three tier for my DC.

These would be private schools though. I mean state middle schools.

Our area had the three tier system. Then they decided to get rid of it .Dd was the in the final year before the middle school closed. It really affected her education due to teachers leaving to find other posts before the closure.
Ds was kept at his primary school for 2 more years despite the school not having the space, infrastructure or teachers to facilitate these students.
He then had to travel 12 miles by bus aged 11 to a very big high school.
I do believe middle schools were a good thing, helping children to transition from a small local primary before high school.
As always though cost cutting came
before children’s wellbeing and education.

I went to middle school (was only there 2 years before the school system changed where I grew up). I hated it. We were 9 and the school treated us like we were completely grown up. It ran like a high school so loads of homework, discipline etc.
Going to secondary school at 11 was a relief as we were actually treated better.

Where I live we had a First, Middle and High School system, 5-8, 8-12 and 12-16. I would not recommend it. Their primary school at 11 years old did not offer the full curriculum that they would have had in a separate subject teacher High School, so consequently they had to squeeze 5 years of schooling into 4 years up to GCSE. I would not recommend it and the Local Authority have changed it back to High School at 11.

I agree, I did lower(year 1-4) , middle (year 5-8) and upper (years 9-13). The middle school felt like a bit of a no man's land, where we were expected to behave like secondary age but somehow also treated like lower age - high expectations low independence. I don't feel I learnt much, and then when got to upper it was a massive rush as had to pick gcse's 6 months after starting, when had only done some of the availsubjects for a few months. The area I grew up in changed their system to primary and secondary several years ago

I think the concept of infants and juniors is good though - which ny girls are going through. It gives the experience of doing a transition, whilst still being very supportive. The needs of a 4 year old are much more different to an 11 year old I think than a 12 to an 18 year old. Our village has 1 infants and juniors and 1 through primary, and those who do infants and juniors seem to be much more ready for secondary, and more resilient.

We have 11-16 schools and then college at 16... i do tthink having the 14-18 in the "college" environment could be logical as a greater range of vocational and academic subjects could be offered to everyone. Not X school offering a Sports BTEC, and Y offering 3 languages, but pupils at notj being better suited to the other.

Plus, with deferrals becoming more common... 12yos and 4yos sharing playgrounds etc might not be safest.

My DD is in the three tier system as it still exists where we live. It’s very popular round here and adults who were in the system as children have deliberately moved back into the area so that their kids are in the same system. It helps that all of the schools are excellent and seem to really understand their intakes. They very much work together to ensure a smooth transition and parents have a choice of three quite different middle schools and pick the one that best suits their child. One is very SEND orientated, one is very sporty, one prides itself on high uniform standards.

I used to like the idea of middle schools until, in retirement from secondary, I did some supply in one. Behaviour was awful, quality of education was poor, staff were lazy and complacent in a way I’ve never seen in schools that have GCSE and A level results as a benchmark to drive them, and teachers who are used to teaching at those levels.

You've hit the nail on the head for me. I learnt nothing at middle school except discipline and maybe that's all the teachers had as they weren't expected to start us on our GCSE journey.

Curious as to what area this is. Are you able to share?

It’s Whitley Bay - North Tyneside.

We have the 3 tier system here. Many parents who are heavily engaged in the education of their DC look to use the neighbouring 2 tier system rather than following their allocated catchment route.

We did the same with our DS. By getting him into a primary in the 2 tier system it also means he’ll get into the secondary school there as well despite not living in catchment.

Speaking as a teacher, I also think they are probably a good idea.
My town used to have them, but they've all been gone at least 20 years. They closed them to better fit in with the national curriculum key stages, so that kids weren't having to change schools mid-stage. It was thought there'd be a better continuity of education, and while they're right in that regard, there is an argument for middle schools socially and emotionally.

We have a 3 tier system here in Frome but I understand it's moving to 2 tier. I don't know the details as I don't have kids.

I had one year at middle school and I absolutely loved it! It was the first year of the new system where I lived and there were only 2 years/cohorts at the school. It was so good in fact that I absolutely hated high school when I got there because it didn’t compare at all. Best year of school I had, hands down. It was like being at high school but without any older pupils - something about it was just right for me.

We are in a 3 tier area and our LA is transitioning the whole county to a 2 tier system. We will be the last area to change. From a pastoral view, I think it’s better however as others mention above, academically it’s slightly pointless!

Also, the middle schools here are fairly large and like a warm up secondary school so not sure it would be a gentler option if I’m honest!

I went through a 3 tier system. Going from first to middle (Yr 5-6) and middle to high (Yr8-9) was definitely a much gentler journey through school than what my daughter has just experienced going from what feels like a first school in Yr6 straight to what feels like a high school in Yr7. I just never had that shock to the system. I think 3 tier makes so much more sense when you think about child development as well. A Yr5 and Yr8 have a lot more in common than a Yr7 and Yr11, or a Yr11 and Yr6. Sadly my town has now switched to 2 tier. I think it is much worse for child mental health.

I've found the opposite. Primaries (if DD's primary is anything to go by) appear to stop teaching as soon as SATs are over, which partly contributes to the nosedive in attainment in Yr7. This shocked my middle school teacher friend as they carry on teaching as normal after SATs and there is no drop in attainment in Yr7. Meanwhile in secondaries teachers don't have much time or attention to give to Yr7 and 8, as their (our, I'm also a secondary teacher) time is so taken up with exam classes. Also, Yr9s in secondaries tend to be bored and restive, whereas in a high school they are the keen bean newbies who aren't bored and cynical yet.

It's not so much the National Curriculum, but the government testing that put paid to middle schools. They wanted to measure schools, so put in high stakes (for schools) tests at 7, 11 and 14, which fitted with most counties' set-ups. That left some schools being measured on the results of a bunch of kids who they'd only actually taught for a year or two.

I think three tier would be better, with the changeover at 13, and moving gradually to more and more subject-specialist teaching during middle school, so that children are not dealing with that change at the point where they change school. But I can't see it happening for a good while, unless it turns out to be a good solution to falling rolls in some places.

There are beginning to be more "all-through" academies, who have more flexibility. I visited one recently where year 5/6 were on the same site as the secondary students.

We have middle schools and I have found the system to be excellent. Our LA has 2 middle schools (only) in our corner of the borough. First school is YR- Y5; Middle school is Y6-Y8 and High school is Y9-11 (the school also has a 6th form).

Middle school A has 21 feeder first schools; middle school B has 20 feeder first schools. Both middle schools feed into 1 high school. It’s a large rural catchment. Some of the first schools are very small.

What works well, is that by Y5, both my dc were getting a bit fed up of hanging out with 4 year olds and were ready to move on, but the jump to middle school was far more relatable than going to secondary school. Lots of people had older siblings there, and the middle schools host so many sports events, quizzes etc (as well as being hired out for holiday clubs and for their sports pitches) that there are very few children who are unfamiliar with them when they go for their transition week.

The middle schools are as nurturing as primary schools, but work on the secondary school model of moving round subject classes. Both DC blossomed in maths once they were taught by subject specialists! And of course, middle school keeps them apart from big, smelly teenagers until they are one, but gives pupils lots of growth opportunities and leadership roles. Our particular middle school had very strong links with the county music service and local grassroots sports clubs and worked with them to develop many extra curricular opportunities.

The slight downside is that the middle schools have 2 terms to get Y6 through SATS. They tackle this head on, with maths and English every morning and other subjects on the pm of Y6.

Then, in year 9, just when you really need to start taking school seriously, you’re off to high school. Without younger years, the high school can really focus on exams.

Some people think that changing schools twice would be disruptive, but - as mentioned above with the middle schools - the high school music, theatre and sports facilities are heavily used by community groups, so kids are very familiar with the buildings (and some of the staff) before they move on.

I won’t be too rise-tinted and say that there are no behaviour problems, but there are no particularly excessive behaviour problems, and they seem pretty thoroughly dealt with in school (I suspect the rural catchment helps, because everyone quickly disperses off on their once-an-hour or special-service buses home rather than hanging about after school)

For us middle school has worked very well. Two smaller changes at 10 and 13 seems more manageable than one big one at 11.

We have the three tier system in the Cheddar area of Somerset. It's been brilliant for my girls, the middle school was a very gentle transition and then up again in Y9 when they're ready for it.

We had a three tier system (it's since gone over to the more standard two tier system) and yes, I think the middle school provided a good transition. There was also the chance to mix kids up again in the upper school, as girls in particular were going through that phase of lots of falling out!