How would you reform Secondary education

[CurlewKate]

If you had a free hand? I would get rid of all state selective and faith schools and introduce a new admissions system based on ballots and fair banding. And I would introduce an extensive school transport network. That would be my starting point. I haven't yet worked out the details for children who genuinely can't access mainstream education, but I do think that most can with proper support. Which will, of course, be in place. This needs more thought and input from experts once My Glorious Reign comes into effect.
I would also have rigorous and regular inspections. Free school meals for all. BTecs or some similar system will be given the same weight and value as GCSEs and A Levels.

Yes that's another issue with them. There isn't a L3 equivalent, whereas with Btec you could go from L2 to L3, and yes as you said, do the award, diploma or extended diploma. Far more flexible.

The reason why league tables are a bad idea is because they don't take into account the fact that every school has a massively different demographic. They cause enormous amounts of stress for teachers who can only do so much. Classes often aren't "set" by ability in the current day and age, yet you're expected to get 8s and 9s out of your pupils regardless.

There is far too much onus on exam results and not enough on whether a child actually learns.

And don't get me started on the shitshow that is predicted grades and FFT.

Scrap Ofsted
Get rid of league tables
Put schools back under local authority control
Get rid of faith schools
Scrab the Ebacc
Only have public exams in maths and English at 16 and have continuous teacher-marked assessment in other subjects
Have more PRUs and special schools
Allow schools to permanently exclude with inpunity when appropriate
Put university applications after A Level results come out instead of basing them on predicted grades

I would not put in a load of life skills lessons that parents should be teaching their children. Going by the long list suggested by MNers, you wouldn't have any time left to teach maths and English, never mind anything else!

As taxguru says: "Progression through school, doing different subjects, etc., should be led by ability not age." By KS3 the gaps can be huge. There need to be opportunities for children of secondary school age to still be taught the KS2 curriculum if that's where they're at. Stages, not ages.

I’d get rid of faith schools, demand oversight of home educated kids to make sure they are covering a shunted down curriculum. I’d have Michaela attitude to behaviour in all schools. I’d be tempted to try something so if you don’t pass years 2,6, 9 you repeat it to keep kids focused.

Sorry, but requiring kids to pass in y2? You realise you are talking about 6/7 years olds, many of whom are not particularly focused on academics… because they are 6/7 years old.

a child at 6/7 who isn’t meeting expectations usually has something else going on and asking them to break friendships and repeat a year isn’t going to address that. On another board there is a discussion around dyslexia and how official diagnosis cannot happen before 7/8 years of age. These kids aren’t lacking in focus, nor are they dumb - they have a learning need that probably hasn’t been properly assessed let alone addressed.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/article/2024/aug/15/pupils-achieve-best-a-level-results-in-a-generation-as-regional-disparity-gap-widens

It seems to me that at the top end pupils are doing very well in private and grammar schools across the board and also very well in comps especially in some regions. Loads of future maths and tech and science talent coming through. 100k doing Maths A level is incredible and doing well despite lack of maths teachers is amazing. I have observed my own DC increasingly use tech apps to plug gaps and I assume other pupils are doing the same.

The issue is therefore at the bottom end and how to level up there in the best possible way WITHOUT negatively impacting the top 30 per cent which is our future too.
All those calling for abolition and attacks on private grammar and faith are very misguided. Grammars do really well despite lack of funding on a per pupil basis.
I don’t think most eg private and grammar school parents would have a problem with more funding targeted at poorer kids and disadvantaged kids and SEN. It just needs to come out of general taxation and people need to start being honest that to level up properly and actually make something of those children will take a lot of proper investment.
I think we have a big problem with a disengaged and disenfranchised underclass and it desperately needs sorting and education is key in that, starting as early as possible. I also think screen abuse and poor diet are to blame as well as lack of exercise. Every child deserves and needs a future. It’s better and cheaper to stick with a system that already works well for many rather than reinvent and respend on something entirely new, but instead spend very specifically on those who need it most. We need everyone in society to be as happy and as functioning as possible so targeted investment at levelling up in the deprived regions and where it is most needed is best, in my opinion.

Wow.

The exam focused, hierarchical approach doesn't work very well at the moment. Not sure why doubling down on it would appeal to anyone.

I’d start at the beginning.

Bring back infant, junior, and middle schools.

Less focus on phonics and maths at infant schools - make it much more child-led up to age 7.

Formal classroom learning starting from year 3, focus on reading and writing once nearly all the children have the motor and cognitive skills to do so.

Middle schools from Y5, broad curriculum. Introduce lots of subjects, including MFL taught by specialist teachers. This is the perfect time for classes in finance, cookery, life skills, sex education, health and nutrition etc etc.

High school from Y9/10. Choose 8 subjects for a high school certificate. Get rid of numerical grades, just have pass, merit and distinction for each subject. At least one must be a numerate subject (not necessarily maths), at least one must be an essay subject (but not necessarily English), schools should have a wide enough offer to cater for a big range of choices.

A Levels for academic subjects, BTEC and T Levels for vocational subjects as before.

Get rid of ridiculous uniform rules, just have a school hoodie/ jumper/t shirt and that’s it.

Longer school day with time for extra curricular clubs and proper sit down lunch in the middle of the day.

Sounds awesome, in particular the infant/junior/middle school system. I've often thought that both primary and secondary schools are too broad and the jump between them is too much. An intermediate "middle" school would be a much better transition. Isn't that how it's done in plenty of other countries?

Lots of interesting suggestions on this post. Many are aimed at solving micro level needs, which goes to show how multifarious education actually is. And some solutions are at direct conflict with each other, sadly. Reinforces my belief that the comp system, which has all abilities, special needs and behavioural issues under one roof is actually unworkable as in real life there are no similar provisions or expectations for one institution to do it all.

That said, perhaps a look at the macro would be useful: what does the country actually need, in terms of jobs, industries, aptitudes. A much closer linkage between business, industry, research and education might help with a lot of the education gaps and decisions about what would work best for the system.

@SurroundSoundLol

That said, perhaps a look at the macro would be useful: what does the country actually need, in terms of jobs, industries, aptitudes

I agree that would make sense, but it'll never happen.

For decades, we've known how many new doctors we need to train but successive governments haven't been able to do it, partly because of limitations/restrictions by the BMA, not to mention short termism in that it's cheaper to import doctors from Africa and the Far East.

We also have the education establishment who want "education for education's sake" and aren't interested in changing the way we want to educate people for the sake of business/economic needs. Hence why there are always howls of anguish when people suggest "life skills" being taught. It gets in the way of pupils who can barely read and write being forced to analyse Shakespearean plays or kids who are innumerate being forced to try to learn to solve simultaneous equations.

All the way back in 2006, the government commissioned a report by experienced educators for what education should look like in 2020, called "2020 vision". It was entirely sensible and had a lot of good ideas, particularly a focus on personalised learning. But nothing was ever implemented.
https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/id/eprint/6347/1/6856-DfES-Teaching%20and%20Learning.pdf

What we got instead was Michael Gove and Dominic Cummings dragging education back to the 1950's with Gradgrindian stuffing of facts.

The current government has put the head of the EEF quango in charge of their curriculum review. That person claims there are no intrinsic differences in ability , that all differences in attainment are due to social capital, that setting by ability is a form of "symbolic violence".

Every major review since the late 80's has concluded that the system of testing at both 16 and 18 is obsolete and premature specialisation from 16-18 makes no sense. Every serious review has recommended something very like the international baccalaureate. No government in the last 35 years has been willing to grasp the nettle and do something about it.

Totally agree @piisnot3 I would add the Nefarious Nick Gibb to your list, as the longest serving education minister and behind so many of Gove's so-called reforms.
RE the debate on summative testing vs coursework, I'd make 2 points.

1. While the summative test certainly isn't always equitable on the individual level, it's been shown to be the most fair at population level. Unfortunately these 2 things don't always coincide. Fairness is a huge issue in testing and a vast amount of work is done to try to create and deliver fair tests and results (including the fact that virtually no high stakes tests happen on only one day - there is always more than one component to reduce any short-term factors that might be affecting performance).
2. There have historically been a lot of issues with coursework at a national level (which is very different from what one PP was talking about at undergrad level - smaller cohort, not attempting to achieve comparable outcomes). However, it may be possible with newer technologies to revive coursework, but it's going to be expensive in terms of security, so may not happen for a while.

To pick up one specific point - workforce planning is actually very difficult, and predicting how many doctors will be needed in the future is a good example. Medical school takes usually 5 years followed by several years of further training before you even start to specialise. So we need to look at how many doctors will be retiring in 10 to 15 years (not too hard to predict) how many will reduce their hours leading up to retirement/ for family or health reasons (very hard to predict), what will happen to demand across multiple medical, surgical & psychiatric & investigative/lab based specialties and think about what innovations might change the shape of services- advanced nurse practitioners (great), physician associates (so far looking bad) and so on. That's before you even think about where in the UK staff are needed and whether graduates will want to work there. Medical training is a bit like being in the army - there is one training system and you must be employed in it - so if you train more medical students than there are foundation posts for they will be unable to even start medical training post medical school.

Rid of religiously selective schools.
More grammar schools
Allow more exclusions

Wait for alevel results to give out uni places
So more testing online and automated
would change pe/d&t/art and music to BTec or more portfolio

Schools to have to actually mark homework and report it back
Have to have at least some comment yearly on the child

So many ideas!

GCSE = General Certificate in Secondary Education so why not make it one course?
▪︎ The GCSE should be the minimum expectation of every child at mainstream school and should cover the functional/useful basics of most the current subjects (tho perhaps not MFL or arts).
▪︎ Predetermined pass/fail (like the driving theory test).
▪︎ Assessment should include project coursework, interview, presentation and exam.
▪︎ All subjects including MFL, arts, practical subjects should be available as modules which are additional to core GCSE. Perhaps point based so that to access an A level in biology you might need x points in science, to access an automotive course you might need x points in mechanics and y points in IT.
▪︎ In Yr9 all students study GCSE + mostly broad compulsory modules e.g. Expressive Arts, Practical Skills, Sex Ed, Social Media, PE and some optional modules e.g. MFL, animal care, automotive (just ideas!).
▪︎ In Yr10 some students will have passed GCSE and study subjects in greater depth. Essentially specialising like current system and probably with some compulsory core. Modular system would enable more choice.
▪︎ Some students will continue to work on GCSE so will have less time for modules but also less compulsory modules so more choice.
▪︎ Yr11 would be similar to Yr10 except more students should have now passed the GCSE.

In reality what this would look like is a cherry-picked version of the current GCSE system where every young person has a basic understanding of the world they live in from a historical, geographical and scientific perspective. They also have functional skills in English and maths so they can communicate effectively and manage in a data driven world. The modules provide a more individual learning experience whilst still ensuring breadth for everyone. Even the most academic students would still learn to wire a plug, change a tyre and cook. Students who find the academic side more difficult would be given the time they need to really learn the fundamentals whilst also having more practical opportunities. Modules would have equal value whether academic or practical.

Modules offered across the country might vary for example many young people in my area have an interest in farming and/or in horses but this would probably be less relevant to a young person in central London.

To really enable this level of choice, schools would need to be large (as many are these days anyway). I would see Yr10s and Yr11s potentially mixed in some classes depending when they passed the GCSE.

I would also like to see regular (1/2 termly?) off-timetable days for citizenship/community learning and work.

And I would like to see schools break down barriers and become hubs in their communities providing family activity days and evening classes, lectures and groups to teach functional skills and healthy eating, to interest and engage people and to provide support for dealing with teens. (Obviously staffed appropriately and not just added onto the current workload!).

You're describing the Scottish system in the OP where kids just go to their local catchment school. We don't have grammars or comps. But it's created a two tier schooling system in cities where house prices are dictated by the school so there's a huge attainment gap between the top and bottom. It's less pronounced in the suburbs where the catchment is wide. But then parents like me send their kids private which costs less than spending £700k on a house in a 'good school catchment'.
The uniform thing does astound me in England. Up here the state high schools just have a hoodie. And black trousers or skirts. Sixth years might wear a blazer.
Private school uniforms here seem to be on a par with state uniforms in England cost wise.

I didn't think the Scottish education system was anything to aspire to though.

I would make sure that every child who needs it gets access to testing for ASD, dyslexia, Vision development problems, hearing loss and PTSD at the earliest stage when it becomes clear that it is needed.

I would ask the NHS to prioritise post-natal women's healthcare so mothers are well enough to raise their kids effectively.

I would ask the NHS to stop pouring truckloads of money into keeping people alive and suffering through the last year(s) of horrible terminal diseases, and instead put that money in to child and maternal healthcare.

I would ask primary schools to work with parents rather than treating them like vermin.

I would change the curriulum so that the fronted adverbial nonsense is gone. I would take a whole lot out of the school day so that it is less challenging for kids with special needs (ASD etc). Then the teachers wouldn't don't spend hours every night answering emails from worried parents who know the classes are not suitable for their children.

I would get of the absolutely dreadful powerpoint slide decks they have in secondary school and get the teachers to actually teach the kids. They would have the option of showing still pictures and diagrams on screen but no videos or gifs. No 20 million text boxes and no buzzwords that are only there for ofsted.

I would get primary schools to stop doing that absurd nonsence of setting up exercise books to look nice for ofsted with all the pritt sticking that that entails.

No horror in the English currulum or anywhere else, even for "fun".

I think the video age rating system needs to be radically overhauled so we are not showing horrifying videos to 12 year olds.

ASD kids should have the option to do some lessons from home to get away from the chaos, noise and sensory overload, but still be able to go into school to sit exams.

More special schools.

Get the NHS to actually have a policy on helping medical concerns of ASD people. Right now they don't have one at all.

Option to learn from books rather than screens for ASD kids.

And get rid of the assumption that Neurotypical is good and ASD is bad.

I also think it would be good to look carefully at the school nursing service, child protection, early help and the family worker service. They cost a lot and rarely have the time to actually help solve problems. Because they take up so much time and help so little, they actively prevent families from using that time more productively.

The whole system is a mess. Schools, NHS, all the public services.

So many of they are trapped in a cycle of constant box ticking without actually providing any benefit at all. It's crazy.

I would ask primary schools to work with parents rather than treating them like vermin.

Vermin? That is a rather sweeping generalisation. That’s not my experience of primary schools as a teacher or as a parent.

I'm with you on religious schools and on applying to uni post-results. publicly funded religious schools make as much sense as publicly funded religious hospitals. They're iniquitous.
I don't agree with more grammar schools or more exclusions.

The problem with (permanent) exclusions is: where do the kids then go? You're writing them off. I've seen kids permanently excluded or off-rolled for no adequate reason just because the headteacher was a scumbag. In an ideal world there'd be prison sentences for headteachers who off-roll or otherwise put their own convenience before children's welfare. I'd be in favour of early, intensive interventions. Also adequate funding for early diagnosis and support of SEN and a more flexible system.

The problem with grammar schools is every time you create a grammar, you create two or three secondary moderns. You're writing off three quarter of kids at the age of 11. It should be shouted loudly that the architect of the 11+ system, Cyril Burt, was later found to be a fraud. There is a much better argument for an adequately funded G&T programme for a much smaller number of kids (1-2%) whose needs genuinely aren't met in mainstream comprehensives. But we'd only need 1 or 2 per county, so less than the current number of grammars.

The 11+ test is indeed wrong, but that doesn't mean that grammar schools are wrong. It shouldn't be beyond the abilities of all the education experts to find a better way of deciding which pupils would benefit from a more academic style of education and which would benefit from a more practical style of education, and build some "bridges" so that the minority of pupils who are in the wrong "stream" can move over to the other say at aged 13.