I wish that secondary school started in yr8

[Middleoftheroad]

Yr7 feels too early. My DTs are smallest in year, bright academically, but quite young in other areas. It still feels too little to start secondary.

I went to middle school in 1980s and started comp aged 12 which I think is better. so why year 7 in this country? I gather kids are 11/12 when they start secondary in Scotland.

It is really interesting to see the different systems and experiences.

Mine are still very young for their age emotionally and physically compared to some who seem to have had phones for a while and have latest haircuts fashions and even boyfriend/girlfriends. It feels so fast and it might be my issue rather than theirs.

I liked going to middles school from 9 until 12. It was the perfect inbetween. I really grew up overnight at senior school and I guess I want mine to enjoy another carefree year before pressures of bus rides homework social media and much older kids.

I suspect a lot of parents would prefer a 3 tier system to be more commonplace but only a couple of English counties adopt it.

I'm another who would favour the three tier system, especially where high school starts in Year 9.

Most kids in Ireland stay on til they sit their Leaving Cert., MrsJay, which is 16 (nearly 17)-19, depending on if you do optional extra years or repeated at any time. Most Irish kids start aged 12 or 13 in 1st year. Official school leaving age is 16, I think, and you're supposed to have taken Junior Cert. before leaving.

I don't understand those saying they're bored stuff at primary? Surely the curriculum for that particular year group would be the same wether they're physically in the primary building or senior building?

The curriculum probably would be the same, but the atmosphere is different. At primary, assemblies are often ages 4-11, you share a playground with younger DC, teachers walk you between buildings, there are regular parent events, mums pop in to lost property, etc. At secondary school, students are a lot more independent and take more responsibility for their own work (and belongings)

It's hard to know whether my kids were ready for secondary because Year 6 is so bloody dull and Sats obsessed, having a varied curriculum was desperately needed. And primary schools still treat them like babies, monitoring their lunch to ensure the finished it all up before going out to play. I'm sure primaries could adapt but my young for their year dcs really stepped up to the challenge of secondary and thoroughly enjoyed the escape from the Sats!

Depends on the schools. But my dd was so ready for the next stage. In her primary class there were some who were into fashion and phones and make up etc. Made no difference to if they were primary or secondary. What made a difference was the out growing of friends that they'd been with since 4. They were all ready to have different friendship groups and to reinvent themselves from the labels both the kids and teachers had on them since reception.

My DD (y8) goes to the only Catholic secondary school in our city, they start in y7. There used to be a boys school and a girls but now co-ed. When fully integrated in two years it'll be y7-9 on one site and y10-13 on the other. I think it gives it a feel of middle and upper which imo is good.

Mine were ready to go at 11. Fantastic facilities and specialist teaching at secondary opened up a new world. The middle school system was adopted in my county to save money by not expanding the secondary schools. The primary sector was cheaper to expand and the teaching staff cheaper to employ. It wasn't good enough so it changed back to transfer at 11. Most children thrive and even timid ones find their feet. All secondary schools have good transition mechanisms so embrace the new school. It will be fine.

I think you'd find if they started in year 8, your twins might well still be the smallest in the year and you'd think it was too early for them. Because your mind would just adjust very quickly to secondary looking a year older.

When dc1 started in year R the infant school children looked huge. Now my youngest is year 5 I can't believe they've letting such tiny children into infants.

Leicestershire splits slightly differently - so Primary till 11 (end of year 6); High School till end of year 9 and then Upper School 14-18 including sixth form. It's good because it follows the Key Stages but keeps younger secondary away from older (although we all got the bus together).

I would rather see a split at 14 and a much wider range of options post 14 - giving young people the choice to follow a vocational route but including some academic subjects as well, rather than GCSEs for 2 years then moving on to vocational. I don't know why they don't scrap GCSEs now that people have to stay in education/training till 18 anyway. They could provide a variety of pathways including apprenticeships as well as an academic pathway where they do maybe 6 subjects right through to 18 but only take 3 to A level and the other 3 to AS.

I went to a middle school, so we did primary R to year 4, middle school years 5-8, secondary years 9-11,12,13, depending on whether you stayed for one or two years of 6th form or went to college in the next town instead.

It worked well for me. I think you won't ever get a system which works perfectly for everyone, because we'recommend all different, and in any year, some will be ready to move and others won't. While it may mostly correlate to youngest and oldest in a year, it won't ever be that neat.

I think we specialise way too early in our system (by which I mostly mean England.) I think most people haven't had enough experience to be sure of which direction they are most suited to. That's a different argument from whether we change schools at the right age, though.

It does here in Oz and to be frank that was one of the reasons I was tempted over here. My DD is summer born and at JUST 11 was not ready for high school.

She's thrived at middle school. They should physically move to a new building at middle age if possible as that gives them the feeling of moving on...

My DD is now y8. Her friends from primary have gone to 3 different local schools and every parent I've spoken to was hugely impressed with how well the schools handled the transition from primary to secondary.
Visits started in y5, then there were the taster days and activity sessions during the y6 summer term. First day at secondary was y7 and y12 only so the school was quieter.
Honestly, so much thought and effort put it to making it all go as smoothly as possible - unlike my experience which was more "lob them in the deep end and see which ones float".

I'm another one that's pro middle school. Mine ran from (effectively, since I'm old) Y4-Y8, so I started secondary in Y9. It was stricter than primary and we were much less babied, but it didn't have the stressy bits of secondary - that's about the perfect balance IMO. I agree with comments about Y6 being totally taken up with testing and it definitely wasn't great for DD that year

Tinuviel, one of the things I think makes GCSEs so stressful is that the kids have to do nearly all subjects - I only had 4 "compulsory" exams at that age (2 x English, Maths French) but everything else was my decision and most people took about 7-9, average being 8. Contrast that with DD, currently studying for 11, of which she chose only 3 and is now talking about dropping 1 - I find it hard to blame her. I'm not saying that it isn't a good idea to widen the level of knowledge, but it comes at a price and I'm not sure if it's worth the pain at age 16. I'm saying all this, because studying 6 subjects to 18 won't meet current criteria. Or you'd end up with them just studying 2 x English, Maths and triple science. That wouldn't be great either. It just goes to show that there aren't any right answers really on the exam front.

11 GCSEs is too many though. No university needs that number so why do it? 10 is the absolute max. 8-9 is fine. Stress can be reduced by sensible decisions. Starting secondary at 11 arguably gives less time to study at a higher level. Around here the middle schools didn't have science labs, language teachers, sports facilities, art facilities or anything much. Just primary classrooms. Therefore the stress was greater at secondary as there was less time to do the secondary subjects with specialist teachers.

Everhope - what I meant was that they wouldn't do exams at 16. They would do 6 subjects, and after 2 years could choose which to take at a higher level and which at a lower level.

Ideally there would be 2 strands - science and humanities. Everyone would do English and Maths. If they are more into humanities/languages then the science could be a lower level 'General Science'. If they were more on the science side, then they could choose which sciences they wanted to do and include a 'General Humanities' class (with no exam) to cover history/geography/RE. The English could combine language and lit or have the literature as a separate option for people to choose.

The alternative to this would be vocational training which would be fairly broad for the 1st year eg building, so they do some bricklaying, plumbing, electrics, plastering etc to see which they prefer, then narrow it down. They could do 1 day a week in the workplace to get real experience. Obviously they would still do some academics - English, Maths, Science and 'General Humanities' (see above) but would be able to play to their strengths.

I was a teacher for 20 years and saw so many kids who would really have benefited from going into 'training' sooner rather than trying to do subjects that were a constant struggle.

With you all the way, Tinuviel! GCSE is pointless if it doesn't serve as a record of achievement for anyone leaving school and as education or training is now compulsory to 18, it's just an irrelevance.

The academic side of vocational course should be focusing on the practical aspects that would be useful, so how to write letters, price your services, and estimate quantities... arithmetic rather than algebra basically.

Middle school system here
They start in year 6
They cope well imo

It really didn't work in Bucks where I grew up. Year Seven was a waste of a year and a school based on primary teaching did not have the appropriate teachers for secondary teaching. Perhaps a different experience in middle schools?

Middle Schools work very well here. They seem to have all the appropriate Yr7 requirements, and everyone moves up to High School well prepared. They learn languages and do all the usual Yr7 stuff.

Another bonus is that SATS aren't a worry re setting in High School.

I grew up with middle school system and loved it. We had specialist teachers for years 7&8 in middle school, and our school has amazing facilities - only thing that makes me jealous of e people that stayed in our village (small town now).

I work in secondary now and think 7&8 are wasted years (as identified by dfe). They don't need to be there yet. 7&8 are lovely years - enthusiastic, excitable, keen to learn. Secondary schools are very pressurised places nowadays.

Plus, would alleviate pressure on space. Build nice big new middle school, cream off 5&6 from all the local overcrowded feeder primaries, take 7&8 out of the secondary school giving them more space, and all schools win. 5&6 have outgrown primary too, and are ready to move on.

Sparklingbrook I didn't think there were any middle schools left. Do the children in the last year of middle school study at primary or secondary level?

Someone is always going to be smallest in the year though aren't they? If your DTs are not smallest by end year 7, someone else will be. I don't get why this makes a difference to when the high school should start.

FWIW, my DS was definitely ready for high school at the end of year 6 - broader curriculum, specialist teaching in sciences especially this has made a difference, much bigger year group so lots of new friendships made, independence by travelling to school by bus himself.

I think, when that is the expectation, most dc are more than ready by the end of Yr6, but tthere are still authorities that have middle schools, and I can see the appeal of them to.
The important thing is, you an only work with the system in the LA you are in, so you need to be really positive about the 'excitement' of moving up, rather than emphasising the 'worry'.

Most people are a bit worried when their first borns move up. I love watching the tiny Yr7s go by on the way to school in September - the older dc tend to think they are sweet, honestly It's something about the blazers with 'growing room' etc.

My eldest is 12y5m almost and still in primary (P7). I can't imagine him already being in high school now, nevermind when he was only 11. Glad there's a little more room to manoeuvre up here.