There's a "culture of low expectation" in secondary schools. Do you agree?

I went to a state comp and turned down an offer from cambridge to go elsewhere instead.

Brilliantly expressed siluria

1. accuracy of the KS2 results is under dispute.

1. There may be other reasons that kids stop performing at 11/12/13 than the 'low expectations' their teachers place on them (this seems pretty likely to me - teachers are far from being the only influence on children, especially at that particular age)

1. There are huge variables between schools, so it is unfair and unreflective to say that this is some sort of widespread cultural issue among teachers. Citing one teacher you know who is a bit lazy, or wanted a cushy job, is not evidence of a profession in crisis.

1. Most of the time the government/media are concerned that pupils are over-performing (and ignore the impact of something a previous poster just noted: much greater encouragement of self-reflection among students, their knowledge of what levels they are on and of how to progress to the next level, which previous generations of schooling did not provide). Now all of a sudden they're under-performing? What gives?

1. The government actually publishes statistics on top-performing non-selective secondary schools in terms of their Oxbridge/Russell Group attendance figures. Why isn't there any constructive debate around what these schools are doing so well, instead of denigrating schools in general?

1. During his term, Michael Gove has overseen curriculum changes which actually actively tell lies to the public about the current curriculum (see my post above) and which fly in the face of all research on the subject, almost all professional opinion from teaching bodies, and around fifty years of academic research in such subjects; he has accused teachers of laziness and irresponsibility if they strike; he has said that teachers need to work longer hours and take less holiday (which is a fair enough debate - but it should be about what children need, not about what teachers should or shouldn't be forced to do); he has instigated a race-to-the-bottom in effectively bribing schools to go for academy status; he makes policies without consultation or debate and then is forced to backtrack when glaringly-obvious problems with them arise. The list goes on. Genuine engagement with teachers to improve things, and a recognition that there are thousands of brilliant teachers out there who do want to improve things and keep improving, instead of headline-grabbing and ill-informed rudeness, would give our children the best chance of success. But that doesn't seem to happen.

The state selectives, particularly the super selectives punch above their weight statistically.

As do a handful of notable non selective state schools.

That's why there is a widening access programme!

Go on the university websites. The stats are there. I can't link from here, sorry.

If my memory serves (and don't hold me to it) 25 ish percent of recent Oxbridge undergraduates came from state comprehensives. That's not representative of the numbers of DC in comprehensive sixth form.

evidence?

To be fair though talkin the majority of state schooled students at Obbridge attended selective state schools.

The numbers from comps is not that high. Particularly given how many kids attend them!

Ambersocks
What UTTER BILGE.
Half of all the students at Oxbridge went to State schools.
DCs comp got four kids to Oxbridge last year and around 40 to Russell Group
Tens of thousands of kids go on from state schools to top jobs and universities
they just tend to have the sense (or lack of arrogance) to stay out of politics

That's just nonsense. I know loads of people who've done incredibly well in state school.

doesnt suprise me,no one does that well out of state schools really.

LaQueen - I didnt want to say it but you have hit the nail very squarely on the head there. I think as lot of the teachers at DS school are exactly like that.

Thanks Juggling, she was grateful to have the opportunity.

Congrats to your DD Scrazy

I agree that bright pupils are being let down. My DD left her non selective fully comprehensive secondary school last year.

None of the 6th form pupils achieved all top grades at A level. The school just didn't manage to teach them to that standard. There were whispers of private tuition and fortunately universities were lenient and the few that applied got into their courses at RG universities, even if they missed their offers.

I don't recall anyone applying let alone getting into Vet,Med,Dentistry. Mine did but via a foundation year.

LaQueen - it hasnt quite got to the stage of 'needing' outside tutoring yet. Me and DW can cover most subjects quite well up to GCSE but what is enraging is that two teachers who retired from the 'other' private school in town immediately flipped to a nice little earner of private tutoring pupils at my DSs school. It really is beyond the pale and my DSs school should be ashamed of themselves.

Another parent told me about it a few days ago as she is using one of these tutors and in some state of desperation.

I know it is not just me who feels this way but the general feeling I get is that the teachers at DSs school as a body are themselves coasting along in a nice school doing quite well with the cohort of pupils they have that are in general nice well behaved children with supportive parents who dont question them too much because they dont know how to or dont have the confidence to or simply dont feel they have a choice.

I want to see drive and ambition to get pupils to the very peak of performace that they are capable of and not teachers sitting back on their laurels. As I say, this is almost a 'cultural issue' among a wide group of teachers and - not a private vs comprehensive thing.

I'm very pleased with the education my DD is receiving in her (supposedly) non-selective faith secondary. I think it compares very favourably with the education I received a generation ago (obviously ! - in the 70s) at my grammar school.
I'm particularly impressed that she has a much clearer sense of what the specific targets and criteria are for different levels and grades, and an accurate idea of where she is in relation to these.
I think things were a lot fussier in this regard in the 70's !
I think these things are crucial in developing personal responsibility for one's own learning, and just to knowing what is needed to take the next steps forward in our understanding and mastery of a subject.

I'm also more generally impressed with the schools high expectations particularly of their brightest students (stealth boast - like it ?). For example in English Literature she is being introduced to concepts and terms that I never came across even by the end of my O level studies, whereas DD is in Y9 and has yet to really start her GCSE studies in earnest - yet is aready au fait with "iambic pentameter" and such-like

Ha ha laqueen - I didn't say my own proposals wouldn't be equally stupid! (They probably would )

Agree with you about the gold standard. Quite often, though, Gove says that things are not being taught in schools which actually are. There's a huge amount of detailed fact-learning in GCSE history, which is the one I know the most about. I'm not saying there's not room for improvement, but saying, for instance, that the new history GCSE will be at least 40% British history implies that it isn't already. It is! I heard Gove slagging off primary teaching on Radio 4 at the beginning of this government, saying that primary school children don't learn basic three-dimensional shapes. 1) he actually got his shapes wrong during the discussion, much to the mirth of everybody around him; and 2) those shapes have never, ever been taken off the curriculum. So while I agree that there's room for discussion about factual learning and it's more than possible that things have swung too far one way (I don't know, but I am sure this is at least possibly true), half the time the government says kids aren't learning x, y and z when they are. It's too much politicking and not enough evidence for my liking.

Constant headlines about the laziness/stupidity/ineffectual nature of teachers are not going to help improve the education system. I'm not saying there aren't problems, and I'm not saying that all teachers are great. But ill-informed attack is what I object to - anybody can see that if there are problems, they are bound to be more complex than simply being down to the inherent laziness of an entire profession and will require more creative/complex solutions.

I don't have them, though ...

I think the low expectations come from the top. The government constantly messing things around, talking everyone down, pumping out their low beliefs about everyone.

I think this is most blatant in the redefining of literacy (you'd think it was like being able to read & write at adulthood, but the UK defines it as having 5+ years of schooling. If we're going to raise standards and expectations, we need a government and media that thinks we can read and write and ensuring it.

Hullygully/wordfactory - to be fair the school is doing very well with DS2 who is just on the edge of the top 25th percentile attainment level in the national scale. For him, teaching to the average is great - because he is average in that school. The facilities are great too.

Also to be fair, DS1 is achieving at a high level but nowhere near his potential. It is not stretching DS1 and I have made the mistake of allowing the situation to drift and allowing 'teachers to teach'. Yes they teach. Yes they work hard but they teach to give the least able and average pupils a good education. They put much less effort into the most able students because no one is asking them to and no one is monitoring it and frankly because no one would reward them if they did.

The reality is that the school is just too comfortable in its position as the best of the two private schools in town and much better than the majority of state schools in our area which in some cases are utterly dire if based on their published results. The Catholic secondary schools we are not eligible for are quite good as is the local Catholic Primary school.

Suffolk, I went to look around a middle school in Suffolk in November and the kids were doing mock SATS! That's hot housing in the extreme - they were off timetable .