Why “They’ll Catch Up in Secondary” Is a Myth — and Why It Matters

One of the most persistent beliefs in education is that children who fall behind in the primary years will somehow “catch up” once they reach secondary school. It is an understandable hope — but it is largely untrue.

This misunderstanding often leads to unfair pressure on secondary teachers, frustration for parents, and, most importantly, avoidable stress and disadvantage for students. Let’s look at why.

What the Evidence Shows

Large-scale longitudinal studies in the UK and internationally consistently show the same pattern:

Students who are behind expected academic levels at the end of primary school are overwhelmingly likely to remain behind at the end of secondary school.

In core subjects such as literacy and mathematics, research indicates that around 90% of students who are below expected levels at the end of primary do not fully catch up by the end of secondary education, unless they receive sustained and targeted intervention.

This is not because secondary teachers are ineffective. It is because of how learning actually works.

The Curriculum Is Scaffolded — Not Reset

The school curriculum is deliberately scaffolded. Each year assumes mastery of the previous one. Skills are not revisited from scratch; they are extended, combined, and applied in more complex ways.

For example:

• Weak decoding or comprehension in primary makes secondary texts inaccessible

• Gaps in number sense undermine algebra, ratios, and problem-solving

• Poor writing foundations affect performance across all subjects, not just English

Secondary school accelerates learning — it does not rebuild foundations. When those foundations are insecure, students struggle no matter how skilled or supportive the secondary teacher may be.

Why the Problem Often Appears “Suddenly” in Secondary

Many parents who come to our school from other schools tell us:

“Everything seemed fine in primary… then suddenly things went wrong in secondary.”

In reality, the gaps were usually already there — they simply became impossible to ignore once academic demands increased.

At secondary level:

• The pace is faster

• Classes are larger

• Content coverage is fixed

• Teachers have less flexibility to slow down or reteach basics

By that stage, outcomes are far harder to influence, even with strong teaching.

The Unintended Consequence: Pressure in the Wrong Place

Too often, this leads to intense pressure being placed on secondary teachers to “fix” what is, in truth, a long-term accumulation of unmet need.

This is unfair to teachers — and unhelpful for students. Secondary teachers are more often likely to be specialists. They are not primary remediation programmes.

A Professional Perspective

This pattern is not theoretical. Having worked in classrooms for over 20 years, across multiple cohorts and systems, the same outcome appears again and again:

• Early gaps rarely disappear on their own

• Waiting makes the problem harder, not easier

• Early action changes trajectories; late action manages damage

This is why strong primary provision matters so much — and why intervention is most powerful before students reach secondary school.

The Takeaway for Parents

This is not about blame. It is about timing and realism. If a child is behind in the foundational years:

• The solution is early identification

• Followed by structured, targeted support

• Not hope, delay, or reliance on future schooling to correct the issue

  
  

Primary years are not “practice years”. They are the structural base of a child’s entire academic journey.

Final Thought

Secondary school should be a time for expansion, confidence, and intellectual challenge — not crisis management.

When foundations are secure, students thrive. When they are not, no amount of pressure applied later can fully compensate.

Early action is not just kinder. It is more effective.